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

DESERTION OR NOT?

"They told mo my wife had died at Havelock North,” said a petitioner in tho Divorce Court yesterday, before MrJustice Hosking, during fhe hearing of his application for dissolution of his marriage on tho ground of desertion. "I could licit find her" The parties were Alfred Arthur Biddla and Sarah Marie Biddle, and the usual charge of having left her husband for "three years continuously” was made against the respondent, Mrs. Biddle. Mr. Jackson, for the petitioner, said the parties were married in 1915, nnd that desertion took place during' the 'next year. The petitioner complained that his wife had been drinking heavily—since Christmas. 1915. He had asked her to return home, but she had refused. Since 1916 he had seen the respondent, twice. He went to the war in 1917, after having beeh sued for maintnance. "I heard ehe waq dead of 'flu’ when I came back in 1919.” said petitioner. * "But there is proof of only two years’ desertion’,” said His Honour. "She couldn’t go with him to the front?”, "No, Your Honour,” said counsel. "I submit desertion started in 1916. . . . She made np steps for obtaining maintenance. She could easily have found from the Defence Department her husband’s whereabouts. She could have seen his name in the paper. . . The Judge-. She is not the type of iu the paper. . . ." His Honour contended that there wns no evidence of "continuous” desertion for three years, as required by the Act. "She only was away for two yearn before he went to the war. . . I can find a dis-continuous period, but not a continuous.” said the Judge. "I will hear your evidence, but will reserve the point of desertion, that is alleged.” After further evidence was. -heard.-iha Court reserved Its decisions ly

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19210526.2.63

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 206, 26 May 1921, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
295

DESERTION OR NOT? Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 206, 26 May 1921, Page 5

DESERTION OR NOT? Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 206, 26 May 1921, 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