APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 July 1931, Page 3

APPEAL COURT

A MARTIAL CASE. (By Telegraph —Per Press Association J WELLINGTON, June 30. The appeal of Fanny Ansley, of Wanganui, married, from a judgment of Justice Reed, delivered at Wanganui in February last, granted her husband, Frederick William Ansley a decree nisi for divorce, came before the Court of Appeal to-day. Ansley had filed a petition for divorce alleging that he and his wire were parties to a separation, order made by Air J. S. Barton, S.M., in 1927. Airs Ansley admitted the order, but alleged it had been brought about by wrongful acts and the conduct of tile petitioner.

in his judgment, Justice. Reed had found that the separation order was an unusual one, and had not been made on account oi failure of petiuoner to provide adequate maintenance for the wife, but pursuant to a deed of separation, under which payments had been kept up to date at the time when the order was made. He over-ruiou respondent's contention lie must assume that the order was made on the grounds of failure to provpio adt piato niainteiiaiice, holding t.iat tin order lt.eli afforded no evidence of wrongful conduct on the part of Ansley. Tao decree nisi was made. Airs Ansley is now appealing from the decision,.

on tne Bench are Sir M,. Myers, (.Chief Justice), Justices Herdman, -tiacijii egor, Blair and Kennedy. \\ ELiJNuiON, June 30. In the .Appeal Court in the case Ansiey versus Ansley, All' Pope, ioi uie api-ciiaut, submitted that the fact the Magistrate had made a separation order was. in itself, conclusive evidence that there had been a failure „() provide adequate maintenance on tne part of the husband, and that the court could not go behind that order, consequently, the separation order had been drought about by a wrongful act on the part of the husband, who was not entitled to a, divorce.

Air Treadwell, tor the present respondent, contended that the only matter it.r the consideration of the Court was the question of whether the Jaidg l e m the court below was justified in taking all the facts into his consideration, and in finding there was no wrongful conduct on the part of her luisband. He submitted that lie was. Even if it could be said that the order was bad, the present appellant could lmt question the validity of the order, «s lie had, from time to time, taken benefits trader it.. . The Court reserved its decison.