As already reported in these. columns, the action brought by Mr. M. Zimmerman, seeking control. of "the property of his wife, Mrs. F. Zimmerman, was dismissed according to a decision given by the Second Special District Court Civil Division on February 3.
The civil judgment of the Special District Court has now been issued. fand the decree made by the Court Aeclares that a separate property regime should be adopted between the parties, that plaintiffs petition is dis missed, and costs of the plaintiff's action and of the defendant's counterclaim are to be borne by the plaintiff After recapitulating the pleadings of both sides, Judge Tu Sheng-chi's judgment runs as follows:—Whether the plainti(rs demand of the defendant to surrender the property to his management in his petition founded should be by the fact as to whether the demand of the {defendant to adopt a separate property regime by way of counter-claim justified. Whether the defendant's demand to adopt the separate property. regime is justified Is also hinged on whether the plaintiffs property enough for discharge of his debi.
Now, I make search on the debt of over $00,000 of the plaintiff frst. The Bl the Shanghai Finance Corporation (0 the amount of $20,000 and to the defendant $10,000 has been. admitted by the plaintiff. Although he defended that these debts were expended for repair of house or household use, nevertheless, the house repairing expenses, being the management expenses, have to be borne by. the husband, according to, the provision of Art. 1018 of the Civil Code, and the living expenses of the family have to be borne by the husband, in principle, according to the provision of Art. 1026 of the same code.
Since the plaintiff' slated that he is 8 man of fortune and has the ability fof making a living, of course he has to bear the living expenses of the family. Therefore, even if the allegation of the plaintiff that the indebtedness was expended for repair of house and family use is true, it is impossible to allege it to be a debt 10 be borne by the defendant. Moreover, hig indebtedness includes the plaintiffs claim of $10,000. It is than obvious that the same was not used for repair of house and family expenditure. Where is the room for the plaintiff to evade his responsibility for such indebtedness with excuse?
'Again, as to whether the plalntif's property is enough for discharge of hhis debt, the plainti' alleed that he has over $1,000,000 worth of property, in Vladivostok and has a claim of over $30,000 on which action has been taken in the Court of the US.A. of Shanghai. Let it pass, whether the former has been confiscated by the Soviet Russian' Government and whether judgment will be in his favour for the latter, but one is not property which can' be' disposed of immediately, and one is the interest which may eventually be obtained in future. Naturally, neither one can be considered as actual property. The words, "the property of husband or wife is not enough for discharge of debt," stated in Art."1010, Section 2 fof the Civil Code, means' the actual property. The plaintiffs maintenance that the above-mentioned property is enough for discharge of his debt is, obviously without foundation.
Although the allegation of the plainti" that the income borne bY the defendant's property after marriage is far over, $90,000 is true, the Property claimed by the plaintiff for management is the house and land at 10 Route Pottler, property other than the jewels in the safe of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corperation, halt of the income on the [Shares Kept and dealt with by Yangtze Ca, and the shares kept and dealt with by Sing Fung & Ca, and the income thereon and this" property
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.