DIVORCE PLEA.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 224, 20 September 1940, Page 8

DIVORCE PLEA.

OPPOSED BY WIFE. DECREE NISI GRANTED. A petition for divorce by Charles Chegwidden (Mr. Burt), which came before Air. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court to-day and was based on an agreement to separate, was opposed l>v the wife, Abigale Laulii Chegwidden (Mr. Hogben).

Mr. Burt said the parties were married in 1919 in Samoa, and came to live in Auckland in 1924. Petitioner had occu2>ied positions as a motor salesman, but 'had had a breakdown in 1931. For a time lie occupied a position for the Returned Soldiers' Association at a lowwage. Then he got a position with a motor firm at £3 a week, plus commission, eiia'lilinjr him to earn between £0 and £7 a week. Ho then paid the wife £2 10/ a week in addition to paying for rent, light and firing, bringing the amount to £4 3/0 or so. In 1930 the parties were unhappy, and there was trouble over debts the husband had to pay which had l>een incurred without his knowledge by the wife. Eventually in March, 1937, a deed of separation was drawn up. Though the wife did not sign it, the husband left the home then and had not since returned.

The petition was opposed, said counsel, on the ground that the separation was ■brought about by petitioner's wrongful conduct and failure to adequately maintain her.

Evidence was given by the petitioner on the lines indicated, and that two applications to the magistrate by the respondent for a maintenance order had been' dismissed.

Mr. Hogben said the wife had £400 or £500 when the marriage took place, and unhappiness arose onlv when that money ran out, and her husband did not then allow her adequate maintenance.

The wife gave evidence that the money of her own used from the time of marriage up to 1937 was £977. The money was used for medical expenses, household expenses and for clothing for the children. Her husband paid the rent, but did not give her more than £1 for the household excuses. She did not then know what his earnings were.

Asked if she really' wished her husband to return to her, the resi>ondent begged to be excused from answering. His Honor said there was a conflict of evidence on the maintenance question but the wife did not give the proof required to satisfy the Court. A decree nisi was granted, but the respondent would be allowed £16 16/ costs