Though a separation agreement between them had been in force since Alaicn 13. 1938, Beatrice Maud Spriggs opposed a petition for divorce brought by her husband, Arthur lOrnest Spriggs, luesseugei, iu the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday. Mr. A. J. Mazengarb appeared for petitioner, and Mr. W. I’. Rollings for respondent. Air. Justice Smith was on the Bench. Respondent admitted the agreement to separate, 'but alleged, that it was brought about b.v the wrongful acts and conduct of petitioner, consisting of his habitual drunkenness and intemperate habits for approximately five years before the separation. The bearing, of the evidence lasted "about four hours, after which his Honour decided that petitioner was entitled to a decree nisi.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19420807.2.12
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 265, 7 August 1942, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
115Untitled Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 265, 7 August 1942, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in