COURT NEWS

Grey River Argus, 15 September 1937, Page 6

COURT NEWS

DIVORCE SUIT Crown Intervenes IN RADLEY CASE. [Pei’ Press Association], AUCKLAND, September 13. The adjourned action in which the Solicitor-General intervened to oppose a decree nisi being made absolute, was resumed before Mr. Justice Callan, in the Supreme Court. The petitioner, Geoffrey Squire Radley, fruit and produce merchant, of Christchurch, obtained a decree nisi against his wife, Dorothy Whaley Radley, from Mr. Justice Fair, on November 16 last, on the ground that a separation agreement entered into between the parties on August 26, 1932, had been in full force and effect ever since. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. V. R. Meredith intervened, alleging that the decree nisi was obtained contrary to the natural justice of cause, owing to material facts being concealed from the Court. The Crown alleged on the evidence of diaries kept by the respondent that the parties had been together on 175 occasions after the separation, and that the separation had been definitely terminated in June, 1934, when the wife complied with the husband’s request to return and live with him. The examination of Mrs. Radley, which occupied several days early last June, was completed before the case was then adjourned.

Rewa Radley, aged lli years, a daughter of the parties, and Dr. Margaret Knight, who had attended Mrs. Radley, gave evidence to-day. r Phe petitioner, in evidence, said he was married in July, 1913, at the age of 19, when Mrs. Radley was 27. He said he sent his children to Christchurch in'l93o because she had threatened to kill them. He described the circumstances of his getting a new home at Papatoetoe with a view to making a fresh start. His wife would not go to Papatoetoe, and they had been separated ever since. The hearing was adjourned.

RADLEY’S VERSION. AUCKLAND, September 14. In the Radley divorce case, m evidence, this morning, petitioner said that he married respondent in July, 1913. He was then 19 and she was 27. Married life became unpleasant after three months. The wife had a bad temper and persisted in wanting her own way. He found it impossible to live with her, and finally left her in 1927. He denied allegations made concerning his conduct when he and his wife went to England for a holiday in 1930. He admitted he had sent the children to Christchurch, but did so because the mother threatened to kill them. Referring to occasions, when he saw his wife in Christchurch, during the period covered by the separation agreement, petitioner said that this was the result of an arrangement made between them that he would take the children out in his car on Sundays. Petitioner said he met her one day at her request, when respondent asked if a reconciliation were not possible. She was in a very nervous condition, stating she had no friends in Christchurch or relatives in New Zealand. He told her there was no possibility of a reconciliation, and she said she would commit suicide. She often threatened to commit suicide. Petitioner admitted he had taken his wife to the pictures, but denied he ever took her out diiving Ip day or night alone, or that certain happenings which she alleged had taken place.

Respondent Succeeds DOUBLE PETITIONS ON SAME GROUNDS. DUNEDIN, September 13. A double petition for divorce based on identical grounds—desertion—was before the Supreme Court to-day, the parties seeking the dissolution of a marriage which, in the words of counsel for the petitioner, had ceased to exist in fact seven years ago. The purpose of the litigation was to determine to whom the divorce should be granted. Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that while his client was anxious that she should be granted a divorce, she would infinitely prefer the success of her husband’s petition to no divorce at all. She was anxious that her own petition, if unsuccessful, should not prejudice her husband’s case. Counsel explained that there was intense bitterness between the parties, and that there could therefore be no suggestion whatever of collusion in any shape or form. The petition, which was heard by Mr. Justice Kennedy, was brought by Wilhelmeina Jane Elder Seymour against Roland Seymour, the grounds for relief being two separate allegations of desertion. Respondent’s answer was a denial of the desertion charges, and allegation of desertion by the petitioner. Mr. W. M. Taylor appeared for the petitioner and Mr. C. J. L. White for the respondent.

Mr. Taylor said that the evidence would show that the wife actually left the family in 1930, and had not since returned, the result being constructive desertion. Respondent had filed an answer denying all the petitioner’s grounds for relief, and praying for a divorce himself on the grounds of his wife’s desertion. The respondent, counsel said, went overseas with the New Zealand forces, and married the petitioner in Scotland in 1919. The parties came out to New Zealand and there were three children of the marriage. In February, 1930, the petitioner left the respondent, and the parties had lived apart ever since. Tn May, 1930, the wife proceeded against her husband for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders, but the Magistrate refused all but the maintenance application, fixing the amount at 30s a week. Frequent litigation between the parties had followed. A great deal of bitterness had been engendered between the husband and wife. The parties had been living apart for seven years, and both were desirous of getting a divorce, so that the only dispute between them was who should get the divorce. Counsel assured the Court that no relevant evidence or information would be withheld. The petitioner, however, had asked him to emphasise that although she was anxious that the divorce should be granted to her, she would infinitely prefer the success of her husband’s petition to the granting of no divorce at all. The position was that both parties were anxious to secure the dissolution of a marriage which had

ceased to exist in fact seven years ago. All that was required was the severance of the legal tie, and counsel quoted authorities in support of his submission that such action should be taken by the Court. After hearing evidence his Honour rejected the prayer of the wife’s petition, and the Court proceeded to a hearing of the respondent’s answer, which included a prayer for the granting of a divorce to him. Having heard the evidence tendered in respondent’s behalf, a decree nisi was granted him, to be moved absolute at the end of three months. As the petitioner’s case failed, no costs were allowed.

Brent-Howarth Case COURT UPHOLDS THE MARRIAGE. LOS ANGELES, September 13. The Court refused George Brent’s suit for an annulment of his marriage in/Mexico, to Jocelyn Howarth, the Australian actress. (Received September 14, 9.20 p.m.) LOS ANGELES, September 13. The Court refused the application of the film actor, George Brent, for the annulment of his marriage with the Australian actress, Jocelyn Howarth, who changed her name to Constance Worth. The Court stated it adjudged that the marriage was valid, because the plaintiff had admitted that he suggested that a ceremony should be performed at Tijuana. The Court also asserted that such marriage was good and effective.

Brent’s attorney said that he will probably appeal. Jocelyn Howarth’s mother said that her daughter had made no plans to seek axlivorce. Neither of the parties made any comment. MARITAL FRACTURE. LOS ANGELES, September 13. It is announced that Mrs. Ricardo Cortez is suing for a divorce from Cortez, on the ground of incompatibility. ALLEGED CONFIDENCE TRICK. (Received September 14, 7.55 p.m.) LONDON, September 14. John Dale, a man, thirty years of age, who is described as an Australian, has been remanded on bail on a charge of stealing one thousand pounds from Roy Stidworthy, of Maida Vale, by means of a confidence trick. AN AMERICAN APPEAL. NEW YORK, September 13. A message’from Newark says that both of the Parkers, father and son, have lodged an appeal, citing errors in their trial, including the allegation of kidnapping, as delined in the Lindbergh law. The father and son deny that such allegation was proved against them.

ORDER ON McARTHUR

To Pay £19,340 [Per Press Association]. WELLINGTON, Seplember 14. The Chief Justice has made a declaration that J. W. S. McArthur was guilty of misfeasance, or breach of trust, while Director of the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Ltd., and has ordered that he contribute £19,340 to the assets of the Company. Costs are fixed at £lOO, and disbursements. An application has been made for a stay of execution. This has been stood over. Mr. Hay, for the Public Trustee, has undertaken not to proceed to execution for 21 days without first obtaining leave of the Court. PROBATION FOR RELIEF OVERSEER. WANGANUI, September 14. Donald McKay, 30, unemployment relief works overseer, was admitted to 12 months’ probation by Mr. Salmon, on charges of receiving £3l 16s 6d and £lO 9s lid on terms requiring him to account for same, and failing to do so. The money has since been refunded. NATIVE RATES TEST CASE. GISBORNE, September 13. A test case of interest to local bodies, particularly those affected by native rates, was decided in a judgment Mr. Justice Reed delivered today. The action was taken on a case stated by the Native Apellate Court, to determine whether the Native Land Court, having granted a charging order for rates, could refuse to make such orders as were necessary to enforce the charge. His Honour answered the question in the negative, holding that the intention of the Legislature was that when the Native Land Court had judicially decided that a charging order should be granted, it had no discretion subsequently to refuse to appoint a receiver unless it was prepared to appoint a native trustee for the purpose of the sale of the land affected by the charge.