UNDEFENDED DIVORCES

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1060, 26 August 1930, Page 16

UNDEFENDED DIVORCES

MORE PETITIONS HEARD “It is a curious case,” commented Mr. Justice Herdman, iu the Supreme Court this morning, in dealing with the petition for divorce by Dorothy McShane (Mr. Matthews) against William James McShane. The suit was based on the existence of a separation order.

No evidence was offered by Mr. Singer on the husband’s original petition, which, counsel stated, alleged misconduct on the part of the wife. He asked leave to withdraw the husband’s petition, and stated that the wife’s suit would not be contested.

Supporting her petition, Dorothy McShane stated that she was married at Ngaruawahia in March, 1925, but the union was not happy, and in August, 1926, she obtained a separation order against her husband in Wellington. In reply to his Honour, the witness denied her husband’s allegation that she had committed misconduct.

His Honour deferred granting the decree until a copy of the separation order was produced, together with an affidavit showing it was still in force. ORDER NOT COMPLIED WITH On the ground of the failure of his wife to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, George Edward Knock (Mr. Sullivan) was granted a decree nisi against Mabel May Christina Knock.

The existence of a separation order, which had been in force since April, 1925, was the ground on which Isa May Martin (Mr. Hubble) sought clissolutiou of her marriage with Robert Frederick Martin. According to the petitioner, the marriage took place in December, 1917, and they parted under a separation order in April, 1925. Some time later she issued a warrant for her husband’s arrest for maintenance, but the police were unable to,trace him. 4 decree nisi was granted.