PETITION FOR DIVORCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4453, 17 May 1930, Page 2

PETITION FOR DIVORCE.

STANLEY V. STANLEY. QUESTION OF DOMICILE. RESPONDENT FAILS TO APPEAL. DECREE NISI Gif ANTED. At the Palmerston N. Supreme Court on Thursday, before His Honour, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Iva May Stanley (Mi- P. E. Baldwin), a school teacher, of Post on, petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Norman Ernest Stanley.

When proceeding-s were opened, Air McGregor, who appeared for defendant, asked leave to withdraw as lie had received no instructions and Stanley had disappeared.

As no divorce can lie granted unless both husband and wife have a permanent home in the Dominion, ihe important question of domicile was raised bv Mr Baldwin.

Respondent, stated counsel, was an Australian, and had expressed his intention of settling in New Zealand permanently, although as yet, he had not done so. Air Baldwin eonlended that the Court could arrive at a decision that respondent intended to make Now Zealand bis home by bis acts and statements. His Honour agreed that the question of domicile eonld ho .decided by ( xpressed intention. Air Baldwin intimated that respondent was believed to be working on a Home liner in New Zealand wa tors. Numerous letters were produced in court, and one of these was the letter which resulted in Stanley standing his trial in the Supreme Courl on a charge of sending a leilor containing' a threat lo kill to bis wife. In Ibis loiter Stanley expressed his intention of pegging out i-is wife, arms and legs, i'vngwise, on a gorse-biish and intention to “make a sponge of her with Indicts, taking care not to puncture any vi-

sa! parts so that she may die in intense agony asking forgiveness.” “I mean every word I say,” he declared in another portion of the letter. “I'll do in the whole family and get clean away, leaving the crime a mystery for your idiotic Government and lmlf-pie police to clean up,” was one passage, and another: “I will carry on! mv programme so -,oon as 1 have completed my world lour,"' promised Stanley. WIFE'S STORY. Petitioner said that for a long while she had been a school teacher at Foxton. On October Ist, 1924, she was married at St. Andrew's ! huivli, Palmerston North, to repondenr. She lirsf met her husband in 1922 in Wellington. It was at a picii. IT: said be bad a farm in New South Wales, but there was a drougbl I hero. During llie offseason, be said, be look jobs on boats, and then went back to bis farm A-r'pi..celling. The next time ■die saw him was in February, 1923, when lie arrived at her father’s place. Respondent stayed with a Air Prince, at Taikorea. He thou told witness he intended to sell his farm in New South Wales and come 11 New Zealand to farm. -He investigated certain properties, staying about three weeks. Before he left he told Ah' Prince and witness’s father he intended to come lo Now Zealand permanently, and she agrood to marry him provided he did so. Witness produced a letter from lcspnndent, in which he declared the same intention. As witness did cot waul to live (dose to Taikorea, Stanley had suggested North Auckland. To this she agreed. He relumed to Australia to sell his property and came back l.< New Zca iciid in November, 1923. She saw a. great deal of him as he remained about Foxton until after Christmas lie went to North Auckland, and on the way np consulted her uncle.

His Honour: He is a well-educa-i cil man, isn't he ? Witness (after hesitation) : Sometimes T think he is and sometimes \ think he isn’t. Witness said she received a letter on November In, 1921 (just after I hey were married) in which he asked' Imr forgiveness for having deceived her. He had not sold his New South Wales property, but had mid to forfeit it and had no money to start farming in New Zealand. However, the arrangements after the marriage were that- she was to join him at Kaipara on his farm after she had worked out her month's notice to the Education Board. They cohabitnted for one night only after the marriage and then he left for Kaipara • for the shearing.”

Mr Baldwin: Il was Alt' Coates’s farm as a mailer of fact —he was employed as a labourer there. A little later, respondent returnid to Koxton to ask her for money -i that lie could take over liis fa ■ Pier's farm in Australia, lie also confessed he was not. as well off as In* had said he was. As witness would not give him any money for his tare, he worked his passage to Aus- ; ralia.

la February, 192(1, he wrote from Australia offering to return her the money he had borrowed, and slating that he had kept it, to eoinpen--nle him for the wedding. (Smites). He came hack to New Zealand Mini wanted further money from her Iml she refused it. In consequent* he had to look for work and eventually weal away on a boat as a trimmer. It was during - this visit that a deed of separation was signed—February 25, 1927. On July li, .1928, respondent wrote In her parents. That was on the return to New Zealand of the boat. In the letter he expressed regret that he had been-unable to settle in New Zealand. Later, Mr Lines, solicitor, of Palmerston X., received a letter from him in which he threatened her with murder. He was con-

victed and sentenced to six months' gaol, giving the Court an undertaking that lie would leave New Zealand after the sentence. When in prison he had written, stating that it was not too late for him to make amends and that on his release he would return to Foxton and settle. He was released in January, 1929, and on various occasions had informed her that he would not leave the country, but would remain to persecute her. During 1929 slie rei cived fro in him numerous letters c.nilirming his previous statements that lie would not leave New Zealand. Subsequently be expressed his intention of getting rid of her by divorce and marrying another woman. He forwarded a photograph which he said was a likeness of this ladv.

In November, 1920, however, bis Idlers began to get affectionate again and be talked about “a pretty little home in live years' time." Another letter suggested that perhaps she could manage to got. a farm and he oonljl manage it. Mr ilnldwin stated that, recently Stanley secured a job on Ibe new Regent Theatre in Palmerston X., and claimed lie could do as much in half a day as the others did in a week. ”1 believe,” added Mr Baldwin, "lie got the sack on a minute’s notice.” His Honour: In a loiter he lias sent me he expresses a very poor opinion of New Zealanders in general and of New Zealand law, incidentally. Mr Baldwin: And the New Zealand police. “Half-pie” policemen, he (‘ailed thorn. That was probably because they arrested him so quick-

Air Baldwin also intimated thal some of the letters Airs Stanley had n cc-ived from her husband had beer couched in disgusting terms. Petitioner stated in conclusion that she bad had no eommunioatior with respondent since the separation order, except- over the tele ph.iiie. She didn’t even speak to him in the street.

John At. Aludford, father of petilinner, said Stanley had fold him he was going to make his home in New Zealand. Matness recommended him a farm, but he never turned up to look at it. Wit ness was opposed to die marriage until Stanley had !.::;(]( a home. DECREE NISI GRANTED.

fit's Honour, after perusing furletters, which pel it inner contended contained proof of her hus-

band’s intention to settle in the Dominion, considered that petitioner had proved her case and granted the decree.