DIVORCE SUIT

Hokitika Guardian, 28 November 1928, Page 3

DIVORCE SUIT

ENGINEER’S PETITION

DOMICILE QUESTIONED

AUCKLAND, November 2fi

Interference by his mother-in-law was stated in the Supreme Court this morning by Colin Finlay Gordon, civil engineer, in the employ of the Ceylon Railways, to he the cause of trouble in his home. Gordon, who petitioned for a divorce from his wile. Marion Gordon, was represented by Mr llumpsou and Mr Fawcett. Mr Northcroft appeared for respondent. Petitioner ‘ said he ordered his mother-in-law to go to her home In Australia. She did this, and after a succession of rows with witness' respondent followed her mother. Gordon said iho marriage took place in February, 1912, and the separation at the end of 1913. He had only seen his wife twice since then. YVlien they discussed divorce* in Sydney in 1919 “ my wife asked for C 10,090 alimony, which was more than l could afford,” said petitioner. "That terminated the proceedings.” An interview took place while petitioner was oil his way to New Zealand on furlough for his health. YY bile : n this country he acquired a small holding at Rotorua in partnership with Dr H. Bertram with a view to settling there, next year.

Petitioner was cross-examined at length by Mr Northcroft. who aimed at showing that respondent wished to return to him in Ceylon.

Counsel put in correspondence from the wife asking petitioner to receive l or. and lie admitted ignoring the letter. Re-examined by Mr Hnmpson, witness said the respondent’s letter was a disappointment to him. I hoy had separated with the understanding that they would not reunite.

Mr Northcroft replied that there had been no actual agreement to separate. A mere de facto agreement was not sufficient. Petitioner had, moreover, failed to establish a New Zealand domicile. The Court had therefore no power to grant a divorce. “ It is a peculiar circumstance that petitioner lias selected New Zealand to prosecute divorce proceedings,” re-m-r’-ed counsel. “This country, as far as 1 konw, is the only one of the Dominions that offers mutual separation as a ground for divorce.” Mr Justice Frazer: Are you suggesttrcstitig that New Zealand is becoming another Reno? (Laughter.)

Mr Hnmpson: My friend’s lack of patriotism is simply appalling. (Renewed laughter.) Opposing counsel submitted legal argument on the question of the validity of the separation and domicile. His Honour intimated that he wished to give further consideration to both points. The case was accordingly adjourned.