MRS STEAD SUCCEEDS.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17978, 25 March 1930, Page 7

MRS STEAD SUCCEEDS.

APPEAL ALLOWED. COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER. HIS HONOUR’S COMMENT. (By Telegraph Press Assn.) AUCKLAND, Tuesday. His Honour, Mr Justice Ostler, gave his decision to-day on the appeal against an order made by Mr Cutten, S.M., by which Annie Louisa Stead was ordered to pay to her husband, Gerald Lovat Stead as a destitute person £5 per week, on the ground that circumstances had changed, and that x new material evidence had been discovered. The appeal was allowed with £lO 10s costs, witnesses’ expenses, and disbursements. “IT SEEMS MONSTROUS.” NOT A DESTITUTE PERSON. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Tuesday. Mr. Justice Ostler refused to regard Stead as a destitute person. He started business last October and it had apparently prospered on his own showing. No moneys have been paid him by his wife; nevertheless he was well dressed and admitted he had never lacked a meal; also that since October there had been a turnover of £SOO. The business had prospered so markedly that It apparently had a selling value. 'Moreover lie owned a motor-car, though not a valuable one. Ho was only 47 years of age and there was no apparent reason why he should not do some manual labour. The effect of the magistrate’s order was practically to give hack to him the whole of the moneys which he had voluntarily made over for the education and maintenance of his children, aged 194, 174 and 154 years. In' the course of 18 months one-third of that income will revert to him, and as each of the children attain 21 years of age, even if they do not marry earlier (all being girls), the balance of that income will he his. He has not parted with it altogether. I can see no equity, even assuming he is destitute, in taking the whole of that income away from ihe children at a time when it may be vital to their interests in order to help to maintain him and the woman he is living with. “ It seems to me monstrous,” said Mr. Justice Ostler, “ that a husband living as respondent is in adultery with another woman, and carrying on a business with her under an agreement to marry her as soon as he obtains a divorce from his wife, should have the right of law to force his wife to maintain him. I am prepared, on this ground alone, to hold that there is sufficient cause for failure of the wife to maintain him and having come to that conclusion I must allow the appeal.