FIRE CHIEF DIVORCES WIFE

NZ Truth, Issue 1197, 8 November 1928, Page 1

FIRE CHIEF DIVORCES WIFE

(Prom "N.Z. Truth's" Special Wellington Representative.) THE aftermath of the sensational dismissal of one-time Superintendent Tate, fire chief of Wellington, m 1925, for assaulting one of hjs subordinates) found an echo m the Wellington Supreme Court this week, when Robert Alexander Robertson applied to Judge Reed for a divorce from his wife, Edith Mary, on the gro.Und of mutual separation for three years. . . ■ • . '../ .' ' '. . -■■• ■:'■■■,_, : ' The hearing was originally set down as defended, based on ,the ground of alleged ,misconduct, to be decided by a jury, but ai the last minute Lawyer O. CM azengarb, who appeared for Robertson, filed an application on the plea of separation. This was not opposed by respondent's counsel, Lawyer C. A. L. Treadwell. : Robertson, now a fire superintendent at Invercargill, w?.s married m 1911. One child resulted from the union. In the witness- box, petitioner said he rbse to the position of deputy fire superintendent m the Wellington force. ..... -r • .. -■■"■.*. ' :\. ' ■■■ '■'"'■. , ■, : In 1925 there was trouble with his wife over the attention paid to her by the then" superintendent, Tate, Oh August 12, 1925, Mrs. Tate was granted a judicial separation from her husband arid it was through these proceedings \ that Tate assaulted .one of the firemen and was

later suspended. v' -. .'■ .. At the time, petitioner and his wife. vyere occupying separate rooms. When Tate was' dismissed, he topk over the superintendent's quarters for his wife, he himself remaining m the deputy's house. Finally, arrangements' were made that they should live apart, petitioner to pay her a regular sum for the maintenance of herself, and chiltl. In June, 1926, he went to Invercargill and had been there ever since. , • Alfred John Wakefield, a traveler who had known Robertson for a number of years, In testifying to the period of separation, said he remembered the trouble m 1925 with Superintendent Tate and his wife which ended m court, and subsequently the assault on the fireman, De May. He was aware of the fact that' Robertson .and his wife were estranged at the time. He had never seen petitioner m his wife's comHis honor, after hearing the evidence; granted a» decree nisi on the ground of mutual separation, to be moved .absolute at the expiration of three months. The question of costs and custody was reserved.