PAYMENT OF ALIMONY.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3445, 26 March 1920, Page 5

PAYMENT OF ALIMONY.

AN IN'J‘.EJR'E:S’[‘I;\«’«G POINT.

An iuterestiiig point in eoniieetion with the divorce laws and the payment of alimony came up for the consideration of his Honour Mr Justice Hos}:ing, in the Supreine Cour? at"Palmel'ston .\‘orl'h recently. The case was that in which Andrew R-eginald Mcl\'ae brought a petition against his divorced wife, Jessie Margaret McNae', who had In:u'ried since the decree was made absolute, for :1 reduction in the amount of alimon_y--—35/ a week for herself and one (child-——\\:hi(:h was ordered before she married the second time.

The petitioner was represented by Mr Ongley, and the application was opposed by Mr Oakley, on behalf of the respondent. Mr Oakley stated that the woman was the mother of ten children, of whom McNaé was the father, and was in a pree.arious.state of health at present; beyond that, the one child which she had possession of, was particularly delicate, having weighed only three pounds at birtli. She hail married a man who was a farm labourer, ree,.eiving only £3 a \\'L-l(‘l{.itHld counsel submitted a medical praetitioner’s attidavit to the efieet that he had examined the man and found he was suitoring from asthma, nervous debility, lumbago, and varicose veins. It was probable, counsel contended, that this man might have to give up work at any time on account of hisehealth. Mr Ongley said that I\lcNae':was an able to pay the amount of the alimony, espe_ciall_v when the Woman had married again He ‘had a small bush farm, and hiniselfialiso re-married.

“It appears to,ln_e,” said His Honour, “that one mail is no better off thail‘ the other.” ' ‘

Mr oakfoy submitted that the _divorce had been bl'Ollghi: about by WeNae’s own Jiiiseexiduet. He Wll3 the guilty party, and should have to bear the expense. _The woman with whom he had miscoudueted himself was now. his wife. " ‘ ’

His Honour referred to :1. judgment delivered by the Chief Justice in .1916, whieh had a direct bearing on the present (‘il.\‘(). It ret'er.red to :1 case in which -.». \\*ornall had seéfured :1 divorce from her husband on the grounds of his misconduct, zlud~hild been allowed alimony. She had subsequently married :1 man in Very good circumstances and, on the first husbaml applyillg for eahcellutiori of the order for payment of alimony. the Chief Justice had merely su.~'penLled it. The judge stated in that case that if at any time the second husband bee.:lnle unfit to support her she could apply for a removal of the suspension. “The point that guides me in this ca:=e,"‘ continued his Honour. “is the fact that the affair was brought about by the man's own Iniseomluct."' His {Honour ol).<e.rv"e<l that he would \':lr_v the order to the extent of making provision for :he child; In his opinion 10/ :1 weeli was not suflieient in these days to support :1 child, so he would h:ll\'e the existing‘ order and make the amount p:1)’:1bl(' 17/ti 21 week.