ANXIOUS FOR DIVORCE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 206, 26 May 1920, Page 8

ANXIOUS FOR DIVORCE

A WIFE ADMITS MISCONDUCT AND PETITION ON GROUND OF ■ADULTERY SUCCEEDS ■'- When"the divoroe oase of William Henry Sharoin v. Alice Emily Sharpin and John Owen was called in the Supreme .Court yesterday, Mr. T. Ncave (counsel ; for the respondent) informed the Cturt ; that, he had been instructed to withdraw ■the defence. ■ Mr. Justice Edwards was on the bench. ! Petitioner's counsel, was Mr. H. F. O'Leary. The ■co-respondent was not re- ' presented. , Mr. O'Leary said that the petitioner was a resident of Gisborne and the respondent of Wellington. Petitioner and respondent had been living in different 'towns for more than two years. Some time ago petitioner received a letter from his' wife, and though he did not himself reply, he instructed his solicitors':to do 80. Counsel "read to the Court the letter that respondent had written. It contained the following passages-.-"1 want you to toll me straight if you will divorce mo if I Bnpply the evidence you reauire. I know you' will nover give me a chanco of-.-getting evidence against you. As regards public opinion or that of friends, I do not care a jot:- I ask you to" sue lor a 'divorce Tight away, and I will not appear-in any way. There should be no difficulty whatever about it. ... . You teed only sue for divorce on the ground of-adultery, and if I?do not defend you need not give the other man's name.

. .".".',-Mr. O'Leary then told the Court ;wbat evidence would be given in support of tho"petition, and submitted that that evidence would not show, collusion Between-, the parties. Petitioner stated that he married thß respondent on February 24, 1897. Thcro were- two children of the marriage. It was two and a half years since his wife had lived in the same house as he. Previously ho . and. she had lived together in Gisborne, but their relations had not for years been those of man and wife. ' There was a parting; by mutual agreement, and petitioner paid the respondent £2 a week while she was away from himr Petitioner some time ago received from his wife tho letter that had already been landed to the Court. His solicitors replied, and the next letter received from Mrs. Sharpin stated that she had lived with the co-respondent Oweft at tne.'New Criterion Hotel, Wanganui. Owen used to be a frequent visitor at petitioner's house. Petitioner met Owen ono day and taxed him with having been with Mm. Sharpin in Wanganui. Owen denied having been in Wanganui, though he said that •he "knew petitioner was entitled to liis freedom," 'and that "ho would •be rather glad to assist than otherwise." Owdn said he; meant by that. that ho knew petitioner had other grounds than adultery upon which he should be entitled to his freedom. At a subsequent interview Owen told petitioner that he had been in Wanganui, but with another woman—not with , Mrs. Sharpin. The licensee of tho New' Criterion Hotel, Wanganui, gave evidence that in December, 1918, Owen and Mrs. Sharpin stayed at his establishment together, representing themselves to he man and wife.

His Honour seemed at first disposed to hold that collusion was indicated. After reference to authorities, however, he announced that, following the lines of a detision eivon the late Mr. Justice Denniston, he would grant a decree nisi. He would not say whether ho thought Mr. Justice Donniston'B deoieion "good, bad, or indifferent." He ordered that the present ca6o be not .reported as -in authority. As to costs, he at first decl'ned to make any order; but upon further consideration of the matter, ho awunlod the petitioner costs on the lowest scale against the co-respondent.