WEDDING DAY SEPARATION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2107, 25 March 1920, Page 3

WEDDING DAY SEPARATION.

, STRAXGF. TALK IX 1)1 VOUCH COI'KT. Purled mi their wedding day, mid never since reunited. Thai was ihv gist id' ll curious story relat'd n! the Auckland Supreme Court in an nndef'ended divorce aclion. The pelilinner was .Mrs Maida Dufianr McKinnon, and the respondent was John Thomas McKinnon. The gronnd of the petition was desertion. The 'petitioner said Hint her marriage took place at Wellington in 1007. In accordance with, a previous arraiigemem, she left the same a.rternoon to visit her parents at Svdnev, lea vino; her husband behind and taking with her a little hoy ol live, her hushmuTs child by a .former marriage. It had been agreed that her husband should follow her, hut lie failed to do so, and for more than a year he offered excuses. lie sent her about .00 in the course of ; welve mold hs. Mr Justice Sim: Why didn’t you i (line hack to Xew Zealand ! The petitioner said that she had no unoney, and her husband never asked her to come. She had been support in"’ herself and her stepson for n number of years past. She kept up a e.orrespondenee with her husband until about twelve months ago. She would have taken divorce proceedings before, but for lack of means. Her husband was her first cousin, and she had known him from 'childhood. James Joseph Butler, solicitor. Mated that lie entered, an appearance on behalf ol the respondent, who now resides at Kohukolm. He produced a Idler Iron) the respondent ndmiltin” 1 desertion. The Idler Mated, "1 have never lived willrher, ami Ido mu desire to do so. Mr Butler added that he had known tlie respondent for seven or eight years, and had never heard him speak of his wife. He was not aware that lie was’macried. His Honour, remarking' that the case was a strange one, said that the petitioner had proved desertion. He granted a decree nisi,.with costs.