Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

' HUSBANb AND WIFE.
A LEGAL ANOMALY.
Tito present slate of the law In respect
to claims by husband ugalnal wife and
vice versa was Iho cause of an action
brought In the County Court this morn-
ing by Thomas Ely against Eliza Ely
being struck out. Plaintiff claimed L99
14s Sd for certain furniture retained or
disposed of !>>' the defendant.
From the arguments between Mr Mor
gan. who appeared for plaintiff. aml'Mr
Field Barrett, who appeared for defen
dant. It appeared that the parties were
married some eight nr nine year ugo,
and thai fourteen days after marriage
the defendant Intimated that «hv did
not care for Hie society "f her husband.
They separated, but subsequently lived
together again, ami linatly separated
again in June laaL Pl.dnttff then left
certain articles of furniture with defen
dant on the understanding that defendant
would not sell them, and that lie would
be able to get them when lie wanted
them. In OcIoImt he applied for the
articles, but failed to obtain them. 11c
then ascertained that defendant had dis
posed of some of them.
Mr Barrett contended that under the
Married Woman's Property Act a hus
band cnuhl not sue Ids wife in rc.sn.el
of household furniture, but the wife
could sue the husband; further, that Die
goods were handed to defendant bar her
keep, in lien of tn.tlnten.inee.
Mr Morgan: It Is not a creditable Act.
Judge Hamilton: (Hi. no: the great
thing nbout an Act of Parliament Is that
It shall pass the Legislature, and give
plenty of work to the lawyers after
wards. (Laughter.)
The case was struck out. with costs to
the defendant.
$