BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Moss or Mackenzie v. Mackenzie [1881] ScotLR 18_379 (5 March 1881)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0379.html
Cite as: [1881] ScotLR 18_379, [1881] SLR 18_379

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 379

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

Saturday, March 5. 1881.

18 SLR 379

Moss or Mackenzie

v.

Mackenzie.

Subject_1Husband and Wife
Subject_2Voluntary Separation
Subject_3Access to Child.
Facts:

A wife who was residing apart from her husband under circumstances which did not disclose any ground in law for separation, petitioned the Court for access to the child of the marriage at all reasonable times, and in particular that she should have it sent to her at her separate residence for two whole days in each week. The husband invited her to return to cohabitation, or alternatively he offered access to the child at his own residence at any time she might come unaccompanied. Held that the wife not being entitled in law to absent herself from her husband's home, the petition fell to be refused.

Headnote:

This was a petition at the instance of Mrs Minna Amy Edwards Moss or Mackenzie for access to the only child (a girl aged two years) of her marriage with the respondent Osgood Hanbury Mackenzie “at all reasonable times,” and “in particular” to be found “entitled to have the said child sent to her at Poolhouse for two whole days in each week,” and to have access to the child “on the other days at all reasonable times during the day at Tournaig House, or where the child may be for the time, and that in either case outwith the presence of the said Osgood Hanbury Mackenzie or of Dame Mary Hanbury or Mackenzie, his mother, or anyone on their behalf.”

The petitioner stated that since her marriage in 1877 the respondent, her husband, had “treated her with much neglect and unkindness,” and that the differences between them had principally arisen from pecuniary matters relating to the manner in which her funds were settled on her by her marriage-contract. In February 1880 she left her husband's house at Inverewe, Ross-shire, with his consent, and until the following June remained with her parents at their residence near Liverpool. During this time she was in weak health, which she alleged was partly caused by her husband's treatment, partly by the climate of the west coast of Ross-shire, which had disagreed with her, and partly by the pain of leaving her child. In June she wrote to her husband expressing her intention of returning to Inverewe, and there rejoining him and her child. This letter contained certain proposals as to money matters. She received an answer from her husband, in which he informed her that he had left Inverewe and had gone to reside with his mother in Tournaig, at least in the meantime. The letter contained this sentence—“Should you like to come here, and write to say so, a room will be prepared for you.” The petitioner went to Tournaig, where she remained for a month, when owing to certain painful circumstances “she left her mother-in-law's house.” She then took Poolhouse, two and a-half miles from Tournaig, with the view of being near her child, but being by her husband's legal advisers informed “that the actual access which her husband is prepared to permit is that she should see her child for an hour three times a week at Tournaig House on the condition of her coming unaccompanied, but the child to be attended by either the nurse or Lady Mackenzie.”

The respondent lodged answers, in which he explained that his reason for leaving Inverewe and going to reside at Tournaig with his mother was the fact that his resources had been much crippled owing to the marriage —contract trustees having at the instance of his wife's friends withdrawn from his use her portion of £10,000 settled by her marriage-contract, and in particular by their having called up a sum of £6000, part of that portion which had been lent to him on security. In these circumstances he offered to receive the petitioner as his wife at Tournaig House and to resume conjugal relations without reference to the past, the petitioner being mistress of the establishment as after the marriage; “Alternatively, in the event of the petitioner still wishing to reside at Poolhouse, to give her access to the child, provided she came unaccompanied and did not take the child out of the house except accompanied by its nurse, at all times when she might choose to come; and further, to arrange that during one or two hours on certain days in each week the child shall always be kept either in or immediately about the house, so that the petitioner might depend upon finding it.”

Judgment:

After hearing counsel for the petitioner—

Lord Young—We do not think it necessary in this case to call for an answer. We have read the petition and answers and also the correspondence, and we are all of opinion that the course taken by Mr Robertson in abstaining from all reference to the cause of the disagreement, and also from all reference to the letters, is to be commended. The separation between these parties has not been so long as to destroy the hope of reconciliation. For the same reason I do not enter into the correspondence. It would be against the interest of the parties to do so.

This lady has not been living with her husband, and she declines to return to his house, though affectionately invited to do so. We must assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that her conduct in so doing is not legally warranted. Her legal duty as a wife is to return. The considerations which induce her to remain away are not stated fully, and in a moral point of view she may be more or less excusable, but legally—and we must look at the matter legally—her duty is to be with her husband, and she is not acting according to her legal duty in absenting herself from her husband and child. The fact of her removing her separate income, and thereby compelling her husband to break up his establishment and go to live with his mother, whose only son he is, is not in her favour. She has been invited, but declines, to return unless she is to be mistress in her mother-in-law's house.

We consider that demand not legally warrantable, and I confess that my sympathies after perusing the correspondence are to a large extent with the husband. Apart, however, from that, the circumstances are not such as to warrant a separation, and we know of no authority for a wife so deserting her husband applying to the Court for its authority to regulate her access to a child of the marriage. It will, I think, be in accordance with your Lordships' desire that I do not enter more into detail, and simply say that the petition is not legally maintainable, and should be refused. The affectionate terms of the husband's letters preclude the idea that he will in any spirit of vindictiveness deny or unduly limit the access of the mother to her child. The child may naturally be a bond of love to draw the spouses together.

We think the petition ought to be refused.

Lord Craighill and Lord Lee concurred.

Lord Justice-Clerk was absent.

Counsel:

Counsel for Petitioner— J. P. B. Robertson. Agents— Mackenzie & Black, W.S.

Counsel for Respondent— Asher— Mackintosh. Agents— Adam & Sang, W.S.

1881


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0379.html