Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Mace v. Mace, 1893

[trover - marriage]

Mace v. Mace

Civil Summary Court, Shanghai
Jamieson AJ, 25 February 1893
Source: North China Herald, 3 March, 1893

LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 25th February
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
MACE v. MACE.
  These were cross-summonses; in the first case Mrs. Mace suing her husband, Mr. V. T. Mace, for $99, or the return of certain articles of clothing, whilst in the second Mr. Mace sued for a similar amount or the return of several articles which he alleged were his property. Mr. W. A. C. Platt appeared for Mr. Mace, the case against Mr. Mace being taken first.
  Mrs. Mace declared that her husband was wrongfully detaining four boxes containing several articles of clothing, which she specified as nearly as she could, and also some window-curtains. She said that all these belonged to her before her marriage with Mr. Mace; some she had bought at Chefoo, some she had bought some years ago at the auction of some property belonging to the late Mr. Veitch, and none had been purchased with money given to her by her present husband. In reply to Mr. Platt she denied that the articles she claimed had been sold at the selling off of a boarding house she formerly kept in Astor Terrace. Her husband had retained or got rid of some of her jewellery, but she did not now claim this.
  Mr. Mace, on the other hand, said he was quite willing to give up any property, the marks on which showed that it had belonged to his wife previous to their marriage, but he denied having taken many of the things now claimed and asserted that others he wished to keep had been bought with his money.
  After a deal of discussion, in the course of which it transpired that the parties had not cohabited since December, it was arranged that the Usher of the Court should go through the boxes referred to, in the presence of the parties, and that they should endeavour to come to some arrangement.
  In the case against Mr. Mace,
  Mr. Mace went into the box and deposed that the various articles the return of which he now demanded, had been bought either by him or with his money. They consisted of knives and forks, some plated ware and a number of small domestic ornaments.
  Mrs. Mace then went through the list of articles one by one, stating that with two exceptions all had belonged to her prior to her marrying Mr. Mace, or had been bought by her out of her own money.
  His Honour said he thought that the case as one for a quiet amicable settlement. If the parties agreed to separate they might agree to divide the things in some way. However, he would adjourn the case indefinitely with liberty to either party to revive it. In the meantime the Usher of the Court would go through the articles in the presence of the parties and endeavour to come to some arrangement.
  Mr. Platt wiotrhdrew a summons against Mrs. Mace for an alleged assault.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School