THE DIVORCE COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 30 March 1921, Page 4

THE DIVORCE COURT

' AN AUCKLAND CASE. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED. AUCKLAND, March ‘26. A divorce petition containing some unusual features, in which the parties lived in the same house, although not cohabitating, was heard at the Hamilton Supreme Court, before Mr .Justice Hosking. Petitioner was John Thomas ,Wade,, farm manager of Onewhero, who asked for a decree nisi against Ins wife. Jane Evelyn Wade, on the grounds of desertion. AN OBSTINATE WILE. .Petitioner snid he was married in 18US, and. had since lived with his wife in Auckland *««* two years, Ren rose for twelve months, Hunua three years, Whitford for eleven years and Auck- 1 land again for another year. There were seven children of the marriage, j the eldest of whom was 22 years and tho youngest seven years. In 1917 he ; was keeping a, small store at.Remuera but he and his wife wore occupying separate rooms against his wish. When he took over his present position at l Onewhero lie asked his wife to accompany him, hut she refused. .He wrote to her several times asking her to 1 come out to him, but she still ref used, ' though he eventually persuaded her to | go to Onewhero township, nine miles from wliere lie worked, where he took ‘ | a house for her. Here she started a | boarding house, but did not succeed, ' j he (petitioner) supporting her and the ! family throughout, and paying the : debts amounting to over £IOO. He then again asked her to reside with him, but she replied that she would j sooner have part of the proceeds of the furniture sale and be free. He gave her £45, when she disappeared, ami he lost the run of her for a time, eventually Gliding her in Auckland, when she was penniless. He gave her £8 and paid some minor expenses, but she still refused to return. The next he heard of her was through a letter written to bis daughter, stating the respondent was staying at a boarding-house at . Mercer, and asking for money to pay her board. He sent her a. further £ll. In December last she unexpectedly arrived at the farm at Onewhero, stating , that she had nowhere else to go. She brought an account for £8 with her , for hoard at the Tuakau Hotel. Slit' had lived at his house ever since, hut refused to occupy the same room with him. His wife, his daughter, and himself all left by the same vehicle that day. driving as far as Onewhero station, where they parted, lie and his daughter coming oil to the Court and his wife going to Auckland. JUDGE HOSKING INDIGNANT. A daughter of the parties gave evidence. in which she repeated that her mother persistently refuse ! to occupy the same room as her father. Witness kissed her mother good-bye before they parted at Onewhero station that morning. Ilis Honour said it was ail extraordinary tiling that a daughter should lie brought to give evidence against her mother in this manner. Mr Ghiistcr; Hers is the only corroboration received yet. His Honour: Then the case should not have been brought at all. Petitioner, recalled by His Honour, said tlie reason tlie respondent refused to live with him was that there .was another man behind it, though lie had kepi well in tlie background. When so rejoined him at Onewero, she was not , wearing her wedding ring, and when questioned about it, she said it was in another man’s keeping. He threatened . to get a divorce, and she replied that the sooner the better, as she would he all th(> quicker wedded again. ( Ilis Honour said the petitioner’s ease t was the weakest he had heard, as there was no corroboration beyond the ~ daughter’s bare statement that her mother refused to cohabit with her f lather. Ill' would not give any decision ( before consulting his brother judges on the matter. j MMMM——PI Big.