Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DIVORCE CASE.

CONSTRUCTIVE 1 DESERTION (By Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.) ' Auckland, March-lir--An important judgment in divorce was given to-day by Mr. Justice Cooper lit the Supreme Court. In the action the parties wero Adolph Frederick William Lorio (petitioner) and Sarah Ellen Lorio (respondent). The ground of the petition was the alleged desertion by the respondent of the petitioner for a period of over five years.. ,The parties were married in December, ;1881',- and 'lived' together ' for many years, there .being several children of the marriage. The desertian alleged was said to have commenced iu May, 1800, and to have continued ever since, lor 1 pome years prior to 1906 tho, parties, had not lived happily together, ■ and on-Janu-ary 10, 1905, an agreement of separation was entered into.'i The actual separation did not last long, .but. ceased'in May, 1905, and the parties lived together as man and wife until, the end, of the year. Later ohc had refused to live with liim,... al-. though he had repeatedly asked ■ her 10 do so. ,

The judgment set forth that the question to be decided was whether tlio proved facts constituted a case'of constructive' desertion, the respondent having persistently from the year 190G refused to 'allow her husband to cohabit with her, the parties, however, having for sotae tiiiio since then lived in the same house. Concluding, the decision stated that the correspondence which hod passed between tho parties clearly-established that • the respondent had' persistently 'in many ways refused to treat petitioner as her husband or to consider him tho bend of the family, or even as substantially entitled to a voice in the management of tho family. In his (Ins Honour's) opinion, the petitioner had-established a case of constructive desertion, commencing at the end of 190 C, and continuing till tho present time, and this desertion had lwon without any reasonable cause. Tliero must therefore be a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, (6 be mado absolute at the expiration of three mouths.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19130318.2.59

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1701, 18 March 1913, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
328

DIVORCE CASE. Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1701, 18 March 1913, Page 5

DIVORCE CASE. Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1701, 18 March 1913, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert