A HUSBAND’S RIGHTS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1530, 10 July 1886, Page 2

A HUSBAND’S RIGHTS.

At the Resident Msgiitrats’i Court, Christchurch, on Thursday morning (says th« Press) judgment was given in a oaie heard,, and the point* of law railed in it argued ait previous sitting*. It was a criminal information laid by Mary Gilchrist Terquahef against her hueband, for wilful trespass on her leparate property. Mr Bruges wae for the plaintiff, Mr Weston for the defendant. The judgment, which tells tha whole story, was given by Mr Beetham j The short facta of the ease are a* follow I —On December 17th last, Mrs Farqnahar purchased from her husband certain goods, comprising the farnitore of the -house in which they were living as man and wife, and the stock-in-trade of a buiinau which she has since carried on for her esparate me and maintenance. Her husband, Jamas Tarquaharthen absents himself, and-does net appear on the scene again for many months. Prior to that time there ie a history of a protection order granted to the wife, after which they cohabited together. After the husband’s departure Mrs Tarquahar rented the house, and carried on the business fer her own separate use and estate. On June 2tnd the husband rstarnsd and walksd into her home. He was told by tha wife to leave the premises, but, instead of hie doing so, ha stays there and she leaves the house. The wife then charges the husband, under tbs Police Offences Act, with wilful trespass in the house rented by her. The question of the w wilfulness of the trespass has been raised, T and as the house waa rented by the husband before he abeented himself, and no intimation was given to him on his return that it wae rented by his wife, I might throw out the case on these grounds alone, became the statute under which the information ip laid is a highly penal one, and It may well be ■aid that unless the defendant knew the home wes rented by hie wife, of which there ie no proof, the trespass wee not wilful, I am not disposed, however to do this, aa I am of opinion that the information .cannot be sustained, on other and more jm* portent grounds. The real and most important question raised is this—Qan a married woman, being in possession of a house rented by her, with her own separate earnings, keep her husband out of it ? It is a question of vast importance, and It is one upon which th* Judges, dealing with the cases sited by •

learned counsel, would give do opinion whatever, I believe this is the first time BPy Court has been brought face to face with the qneetion. The 14th -leotion of the Merned Wemen’i Property Act, 1884, if MentioaTwith section 12 of the English Aofc. It ia u follow* :—•' Erery woman, whether married before or after thi« Act, shall have, la her own name, against all whomsoever, including her husband, the same civil remedies, and also (subject, at regard* her , hubaod, to the proviso hereinafter contained), the fame remedies and redress bj way of criminal proceeding* for tba protection of her own separate property, H it each property belonged te her ae a femme sole.” The proviso is as follows —“ But no criminal proceeding shall bo taken by any wife against her husband by virtue of this Act while they are living toS ether, as to or concerning any aot done by ia husband while they were living together concerning property claimed by the u ife nn less such property shall have been wrongfully taken by the husband when leaving, or deserting, or about to leave or d?»ert his wife.” The oa«e Weldon v. Do Bathe merely settles this: That a husband is not entitled to bring a stranger into a home the property - ’ Ida wife against her wish. In this caeo i- is contended that the huswas a stranger himself. In the case Weldon v. De Bethe the action was a civil suit for trespass. In the case befors me a criminal information has been laid. There is no evidence that these persons were not living together, as I understand it. There is certainly no suggestion that the ]) husband has taken any property belonging to the wife. There is no judicial separation. There is not even a proteotion order. Certainly the husband has been away from the wife for six months. Bo are many husband*, without the suggestion that they are not living together: There is no evidence here even that they bad agreed not to live together. The transaction may, for aught I know, have been a business one. Therefore I think that, whatever might have been the fate of a civil action, a - criminal information will not lie. We must carefully bear thie in mind, that ■ an inferior court will not usurp the jurisdiction of a superior one. And it seemi to me that to hold the husband a stranger in this gnd similar eases would be in effect to grant - a divoroe, a mensa et thoro (from bed and . board), If I could exorcise such a jurisdiction on the simple and cheap powers of information in a summary way, I should have ■no time for any other work. The wife has no right to refuse the society of her husband, even to the extent of cohabitation, unless by the sanction of the Supreme Court, given after solemn procedure. The position, in my opinion, is this—-That the husband can . *nter a house, which is the separate property of bis wife, to enjoy her society, that is if he can enter her house without destroying her property by injuring door or window. It is a question whether or not ho could help ‘ himself to a pieoe of bread or a onp of tea {Probated by his irife’s earnings, or whether e could use her furniture ; but upon these points, following the example of the learned Judge* in the case of Weldon v. Deßathe, . M I express, nO opinion whatever." The ease ......wae dismissed without costs.