RETURNED SOLDIER'S ALLOTMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 October 1919, Page 6

RETURNED SOLDIER'S ALLOTMENT.

EFFECT ON DIVORCE PETITION. The question whether an allotment made under compulsion means that a man has been supporting his wife was made before Mr. Justice Herdiuan to-day in the ease of Martha Jane Joyce (Mr. R. B. Ward) v. Theobald Ritchie Joyce, a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of drunkenness and failure to maintain. At n previous hearing His Honor held that he was satisfied concerning the charges of drunkenness, but he adjourned the case in order to hear further argument as to whether a man making an allotment to his wife under Defence regulations was maintaining her. Mr. Ward said that the question was whether an allotment paid over by the Defence Department should be deemed payment by the husband. This aspect of the case had arisen through the war, and the matter was one that probably affected many women in the Dominion, and was, therefore, rather important. He could not find any decision of any Court as to whether an allotment by the Defence Department to a married women should be regarded as maintenance provided by the husband. His Honor: Surely this is a payment of the husbapd'a money.

Mr. Ward: "I contend it is not." Counsel explained that the petitioner had received £1 Is a week in the way of allotment money. Even if the husband did not actually serve —if he were a conscientious objector—his wife would still receive that £1 Is a week. For these reasons, unless a great injustice were to be done to many women, he urged that the Court should exercise its discretion in this case. It had been proved that the payment of any money by the husband was not a voluntary payment, it was a compulsory one on account of the Government regulations, and that should be taken into consideration. His Honor: Where a woman has £3OO a year could it be said that her husband had left her without means of support? Counsel: This woman has nothing.

His Honor: She had the allotment and an allowance to the amount of 35s a week for a period of four years. Counsel: The husband was compelled to give his allotment.

His Honor: I don't think that matters. The wife was not habitually left without any means of support. Counsel said that since April last Joyce had contributed nothing to his wife's support. His Honor, in dismissing the petition, said that petitioner should endeavor to secure a divorce on some other grounds. If there were any evidence of cruelty counsel should tile a new petition. It would no doubt be a good thing for the woman if she got a divorce.