Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DIVORCE COURT

i AN UNUSUAL CASE. WELLINGTON, July 5 In the .Supreme Court yesterday, be , fore His Honour Sir John Kalmonc David Andrews applied for a dissolutio of bis marriage wtb Fanny Andrew! under section 4of the Divorce an Matrimonial Causes Act, 1920. Mr A Dunn appeared for the petitioner, an Air Evans for the respondent. Counsel for petitioner said the mat [ riage took place in 1884, and th parties resided in Wellington till 1911 when they separated by mutual cot sent, petitioner paying bis wife €2 pe week. Petitioner, continued eounse bad admitted adultery with anothe woman, with whom he has been li\ ing, and was the father of an illegit mate child. It was petitioner’s intei | tion, if granted a divorce, to man I the woman with whom lie had l>ee living. i Petitioner, giving evidence, sai there were four children of the mai j riage. He had objected to his wif ! going out at night. They had diffei 1 dices, and his wife suggested that Hi | should leave him. He agreed to thi ! course, and to give her an allowance as well as the house furniture. Rc spondent then resided with her mother 1 He had been faithful to his wife uiiti 1912. The deed of separation was exe cuted, but not at petitioner’s request. 1 Respondent, giving evidence, sate she had been willing to return to he husband, but there had been continua i differences between them. As to tin complaint of her having gone out ai night, her husband would not spent to her while she was at home. Mrs Hastings, a daughter, gave evidence regarding differences between her parents, which, she said, frequently concerned the sons. His Honour said this was a case of a guilty husband asking for a divorce from a guiltless wife. He had been proved to be living with another woman and now asked that his marriage should be dissolved. His Honour agreed that tlie marriage should he dissolved, hut ho felt that adequate .arrangements should be made for the wife. He would dissolve the marriage, hut would not grant a decree until he was satisfied as to the maintenance arrangements. ae.t ll U <l V™ rr L*

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19210706.2.27

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 6 July 1921, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
368

DIVORCE COURT Hokitika Guardian, 6 July 1921, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT Hokitika Guardian, 6 July 1921, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert