“MUTUAL SEPARATION”

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 42, 12 November 1921, Page 5

“MUTUAL SEPARATION”

CASES IN DIVORCE COURT

PETITIONS UNDER THE NEW PROVISO

Several divorce suits under the "mutual separation” section of tho Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act (section -1) were heard by Mr. Justice Sim yesterday. z CAMPBELL V. CAMPBELL. Lillian Mary Campbell (petitioner), represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford. said she had married Joseph Campbell ih 19(18 and had agreed to separate in April, 1913. The respondent was to contribute towards tho support of the petitioner and her children. However, ho had not made regular payments since the date of separation. A decree nisi, with custody of tho children, was granted. AMBLER V. AMBLER.

William Frederick Ambler (Mr. Jackson) said he had been separated fre-m Augusta Lavinia Ambler since 1903. lie had had conversations with his wife since the separation, but had not lived with her, and she had made no demand for maintenance Irom him. The respondent, who had been in Sydney for ten or eleven years, had means oi her own. "She has never bothered me since 1903,” he added. A decree nisi was granted, LYNCH V. LYNCH. Mary Ellen Lynch (petitioner) said she had been separated from Michael Lynch in 1917, having been married in Whangarei in 1907. There were two children of the marriage. Her husband had been "drinking for years,” she said. The grounds of the separation hud been drunkenness and cruelty. _ "He never paid any maintenance, asserted tho petitioner. After other evidence had been given a decree nisi was granted.