DIVORCE OF EX-M.P

Hokitika Guardian, 29 September 1920, Page 3

DIVORCE OF EX-M.P

! PEARCE V. PEARCE

"INTERESTING STAGE REACHED.

WELLINGTON, Sept. 27

A peculiar development in the divorce suit of Margaret Pearce v. George Pearce has occurred, and was mentioned in the Supreme Court in Chambers before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) on Saturday morning. Mr M. Myers appeared for the petitioner, and Sir John Findlay, Iv.C., foi’ Mr Pearce’s solicitor.

The question involved was as to the service of the petition for alimony and application for the decree absolute. Mrs Pearce was granted a decree nisi in the Divorce Court in Wanganui, the respondent being the ex-M.P. for Patea. The respondent left New Zealand in June last, taking with him his daughter Hazel, 20 years of age. / Sir John Findlay said that the respondent’s solicitor had had correspondence with Mr Pearce, and it was assumed that the latter was visiting Japan. But from the correspondence which he (Sir John had carefully read he had advised the solicitor (Mr Treadwell) not to accept service as it was doubtful whether, judging from the correspondence, he was still authorised to act for- Pearce. Sir John pointed out that the whole of Pearce’s property was in New Zealand, in the hands of trustees, and he suggested that the matter should be adjourned until, say, December 10, by which time it was probable that Pearce would be back in New Zealand. Mrs Pearce and her daughters would in no way be prejudiced nor would they suffer. Mr Myers said Pearce was going to receive, from the petitioner and himself just so much consideration as he deserved, which was nil. He (counsel) was going to give Pearce an opportunity of learning that the idea that there is a difference between a rich man and a poor man in the Courts of Justice was a delusion—“that because he owns a quarter of a million of money he can defy the law and flout this Court.” Pearce had been warned by-'letter in Australia that these proceedings would be taken, and he deliberately went further away. With respect to the petition for alimony and the application for the decree absolute, Mr Myers contended that he had a right to serve these on Mr Pearce’s solicitor on the records. If the respondent had decided to go away from the country in contempt of Court that was his affair. Before Pearce went away he (counsel) did everything lie could to prevent him placing himself in his present position. An order made by His Honour, Sir Bassett Edwards, was served on Pearce at the wharf in June last.

His Honour: What right has he to keep the girl (Hanoi) in Australia and pay her expenses. Mr Myers: Before the girl was allowed to go away representations were made to the Government that this was contempt of Court, and it was pointed out that if the permit, which had already been granted, was not cancelled, the Government would be parties to the contempt of Court. It was regrettable —I will use no stronger term—that permits, should have been granted to Pearce and his daughter. This man has gone away and is keeping away, and is entitled to no consideration. Mr Myers suggested that documents in connection with alimony and for the decree absolute should be served on the solicitor on the records.

There was also a motion for contempt of Court for Pearce having taken his daughter away to Australia, and Mr Myers said that his application to the Court was that Pearce should he punished severely for his “deliberate attempt to flout the Court.’ Sir John Findlay said that the girl herself would return shortly, and would show that she went away of her own

accord. His Honour: That might be, but she should not have gone.

Sir John: She acted on her own motion. , , His Honour: How did she get the means?

Sir John: She has £7OOO. Mr Myers: She has no income. That is capital. His Honour: If he chooses to go away that is his business. I shall make an order that the petition for alimony and the application for the decree absolute be served on the solicitor on the records. . With respect to the motion to have Pearce committed for contempt o Court, His Honour ordered that the papers be left in the Court for. a fortnight, when they would be dealt with.