Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

"MONSTROUS RUBBISH."

AMAZING MARRIAGE AGREEMENT

RESTITUTION CASE.

Some remarkable features were repealed in a case heard recently in Adelaide m which Rose Smith sued for the restitution of conjugal rights against old Law Smith, a well-known prinCipal of the firm of Harris, Searlc, &

Counsel for the petitioner read a letter from the respondent's solicitor, stating that he would allow her an additional £SO a year while she remained out of South Australia. He dealt with an agreement signed ■ v , th « Parties on July 27, 1918, which set out that respondent would pay petitioner £3OO a year on certain conditions. Among them were: That the Marriage, which took place at a registry office, should not become public knowledge; that petitioner should live apart from her husband and should not approach or communicate with or molest his relatives that she should not appioach respondent by person or in writing, but nothing in the agreement was to debar the husband from visiting or cohabiting with his wife on his own volition.

The agreement further provided that petitioner could, after permission given by her husband in writing, make any defence of her chastity; and finally that, failings the observance of all conditions, the contract should be determined.

Commenting on the agreement, the wife B> counsel, Mr. P. V. Smith, K.C., referring to the respondent, and quoting Voltaire, said, "God shows what he thinks of money by the people he gives it to." He stressed the point that in the terms of the agreement petitioner was called on to renounce her rights whilst respondent insisted on his right to visit and cohabit with his wife on his own volition. It was a kind of document the material for the wording °f _ which was not to he found in a civilised heing. The agreement was monstrous rubbish, drawn up by hard business heads, and a child (the petitioner), who had no assistance and who could he bribed into it by promises which ■were lying and mendacious, that site was getting an increase in her allowance, the while respondent was filching her of presents lie had given her.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19200601.2.45

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, 1 June 1920, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
351

"MONSTROUS RUBBISH." Taranaki Daily News, 1 June 1920, Page 5

"MONSTROUS RUBBISH." Taranaki Daily News, 1 June 1920, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert