CONTESTED BY WIFE

Hokitika Guardian, 27 August 1931, Page 3

CONTESTED BY WIFE

/ PETITION FOR DIVORCE. SEQUEL TO SEPARATION. RESPONISBILITY IN DISPUTE, AUCKLAND, August 24. A defended divorce case —rather uncommon nowadays—was heard at the Supreme Court, Auckland, this morning before Mi- Justice Herdman. Petitioner was Frederick Horace Tnomas and the respondent Rena M. Thomas. The petitioner asked for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of mutual separation, but respondent asked the Court to exercise its discretion, as the separation had .been brought about through petitioner’s fault.. Mr Benue, t apuiared for petitioner and Mi - terry lor respondent. Frederick Horace Thomas, a postal official at Hamilton said lie was married to respondent at Nelson. They lived at Tangowahine, Aratapu, and Whargarei.. There were two children. On April 6, 1928, lie and his wife niacin a deed of mutual separation, and they had not lived together since. She had been living with her people for six years. He had frequently asked her to come back to him during that period. When he was transferred to Whangarei he could! not get a bouse and bis wife said she would go to Nelson for a holiday. Ultimately, at the end of 1927 she returned but there were a great many bickerings over small matters and they could not get on together. Eventually, one day when they.were shifting house, the wife refused to go,to the.new place and told him lie could takethe two ohildremwith him. She-'afterwaitls went to a boardving house. Her father came up and it was bis suggestion that there should be a separation.

“INCOMPATIBILITY.” His Honor: I take it that at was nothing more than iucompatibil ty ? That is so.. In answer to further questions petitioner said that in about n : ne years he had not lived more than four month with his wife. His Honor asked how it wa s that the wife had- been so long away in Ne son. Petitioner'said his work necessit ted a great deal of travelling, and she preferred to be with her people in Neb on. Under the deed of separation he- a'lowed bis wife £2 10s a week. Some months ago be got £47 in arrears and she sued him.

Petitioner explained that the eldest child, a girl of 17, was put in a Rom n Catholic home at the suggestion of Major Gordon and Father Buckley. The boy was now in a Government farm school. ' - : 1

In answer to further questions by Mr Terry, petitioner said his wife suffered from bad health’ early in their marriedlife, and he admitted she had been partly paralysed and that she was ill when mi Nelson. He admitted that be did not send her more than £l2 or £ls a year while s lie was in Nelson, but lm 'ar-w she was not in want. While they were living at Whangarei his wife did not make suggestions about t other women. He admitted she found a- letter in his coat pocket. It was from another women, but there was nothing

in it. Mr Terry: Were you not carrying on a liais'-n with the other woman.?—No. ■' Mi- Terry: Wasn’t there a struggle to get the- letter, arid didn’t .you. come home the worse for liquor?—-No. Mr Terry: Didn’t you knock her down and strike her?—.No. That is one thing 1 never did to hqr. Mr Terry produced a novel which contained the name of “the ether woman” and said Mrs Thomas had found it in the house. Witness admitted the presence of the book. His Honour. What is ihe r/’tle of it? Mr.’Terry : “The Last Shot.”

“.SAVED HIS LIFE.” Air Terry read.,extracts from the lett i which reflected;,on Mrs Thomas and aid she must have been madi to go on is she did. It began: “My love, if I can still c >ll you that.” It also asked: !iow, Airs Thomas got to “know about Con’s, (where the woman was s aying), and added “as she knowg so much it is a--wonder, she does not know more.”, Mr. Terr : The terms in the-letter suggest th it you were rather friendly with the woman? —No. In answer to the Court, Mr Terry said the woman in question was a nurse, about 45 years of age. His Honor (to petitioner): How doe s it come about that she should write to you in this wav? Petitioner: She saved my life twice when I was ill. His Honor: It is strange that she should write about your wife in the way she did:. . Mr Terry (reading from the letter): It asks you why you did not put the telephone out of order so that Mrs Thoma s could not l in S «P « certain woman on , the telephone. You cannot understand why she should write to you like that ?—No. LOVE AND KISSES. Mr Terry (still quoting from the letter): It finishes up “With tons of love, and big kisses, yours always, as you know, sweetheart.” At the smie time that your wife found that letter you told her that you were carrying on with score s of others? Petitioner: Tt is not true. His Honor: After the discovery of this letter your wife left? Petitioner: No, we were living together for about three weeks after that. At the conclusion of the petitioner s

case Mr Terry said lie relied on section 18 of the Act of 1928, which gave, the judge discretion to refuse the application if it was proved that the cam o.of, the separation was due to £l}Q>;petitioner’s misconduct. . His Honor said it., was a pity, that tin couple should not be separated. It was evident they would never live together. Mr Terry said the wife objected to a divorce on grounds of religion. His Honor: It seems to me that she' is only perpetuating her own unhappir ness. Mrs Thomas then went into the box She said she had been ill in Nelson. She and her. husband had got along all right until she found a letter from the woman. Her husband said there was nothing in it, and 'the letter,' was destroyed. .When she found The hook with the woman’s name in it her husband said it belonged to « hoy in the office. Later on she found the second.letter. . * PETITION Dl SMISSED. His Honor said that apparently the final cause of the' separation was the finYng of the letter. Mr Bennett wished to show that there- was trouble between the parties before the date of the finding of the letter. His Honor said the finding of the letter was the final cause. Tt was a great pity that the two could not he divorc'd hut in face of the law, if the respondent objected the Court had no alternative but to- refuse the petition. The judge allowed the respondent costs.