PROVISION OF A HOME

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 181, 2 July 1937, Page 2

PROVISION OF A HOME

COURT OF APPEAL CASE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON. July 1. An interesting and novel point was raised in a case heard at the Court of Appeal to-day when Ronald Eric Phimister, hospital porter, Auckland, sought an order for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. Anita Millv Phimister.' The petitioner took proceedings at Auckland on June 2 last, when evidence was given that before his wife left him the parties had been-sharing the homo of petitioner’s parents, and that lie was still living there. The parties had also lived in flats. The petitioner stated that he did not expect his wife to return and live with him at his parents’ house, but that she always understood he would he w-’lling to find another home for her. The petition, accordingly, was removed into the Court, of Appeal and the Question is whether n restitution order can nronerlv be m°de where the husband admits that he has no home to take his wife to? Should she be ordered to return to liim? The petitioner was represented bv Mr W F,. Leicester, Wellington, with Mr K. C. Aekins, Auckland. The original petition was undefended. It was submitted to-day, on behalf of the petitioner, that cases where a decree of restitution had been refused to a husband show either (1) that the application was contrary to the r>**ineirJcQ unon which English ecclesiastical Courts would grant a divorce; (2) that the conduct of the husband had been in question or. (3) that the application is contrary to public policy. Counsel submitted that if the case fell under any of the above heads it could come only under the last and the decree of restitution sought, therefore, could, in the circumstances, properly be made, following certain New South Wales decisions. . The Court reserved judgment.