WEDDING DAY SEPARATION.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3444, 25 March 1920, Page 3

WEDDING DAY SEPARATION.

STRANGE‘ TALE IN DIVORCE COURT.

AUCKLAND, March 20.

Parted on their wedding day, and never since re—united. That. was the gist of a, curious story related at the Supreme Court this morning, in an undefended divorce action; The petitioner was Mrs Maida Dufair McKinnon, and the I'eSl)ondent was John Thomas ‘i\lucKinnon. The ground of the petition was desertion. The petitioner said that her marriage took place at 'Welling'ton in 1907. In accordance with .a previous arrangeinent, she left the same afternoon to visit her parents at Sydney. leaving her husband behind, and taking with her a. little boy of five, her husb<and’s child by a former murriage. It had been agreed that her husband should follow her, but he failed to do so, and for more than a year he offered excuses. He sent her about £9O in the course of twelve months.

.\"lr .T11::ti(i0 Sim: \Vhy didn’r you come back to. New Zeula.nd?

The petitioner said that she had no money and her ‘husband never asked her to come. She had been supporting herself and her stepson for 11. number of years past. 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 Josph Butler, solicitor, stafed that he entered an apperaancc on behalf of the respondent, who now resides at Kohukohu. He produced a letter from the respondent, admitting descrtion. The letter stated: “I have never lived with her, and I do not desire to do so.” Mr Butler added that he had known respondent for seven or eiglat yc:lr.<, and had never heard him speak of his wife. He was not aware fhat ho was ma?‘ried.

His Honour, .I'(‘-lllilfl-2i]],f__l'. rthat the case was a peculiar one, said that Um petitioner had proved resertion. He granted :1 decree nisi, with costs.