SEQUEL TO A DIVORCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1921, Page 5

SEQUEL TO A DIVORCE.

CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. AN IMPORTANT DECISION. By Tolerrnph --Press Association: Auckland, Last Night. An important decision regarding the custody of the children of parties in . a divorce suit was given by Mr. Justice Stringer at the Supreme Court to-day, when His Honor made an order giving the custody of three daughters to their mother, who had been found guilty of adultery. The case was one in which Edward Henry Meurant sought a divorce from Isabel Meurant, the co-respondent being Henry Andrew Walker.

His Honor said that by a majority verdict the jury found that adultery had been committed on December 26, 1920, thus impliedly negativing proof of other allegations of adultery. Had His Honor been ; trying the case alone he should not have i considered the evidence referring to that particular occasion sufficient to establish the grave matrimouial offence of adultery, although no doubt the * respondent, had committed serious indiscretions calculated to rouse suspicions as to her fidelity’. The question, however, was one for the jury, and their verdict must, be accepted, with all its legal consequences. A decree nisi was pronounced on March 10, 1921, and the present motion was to make a decree absolute. Since the separation in September, 1920, under the deed respondent had the custody of the three children, the eldest being 10 ■ and the youngest not quite five, and it was admitted she had been extremely solicitious for their welfare. On the other hand, petitioner’s occupation os a tramway motorman necessitated his being away from home for long, continuous periods by day and night, and if, therefore, the custody of the children was given to him be would have to depute the duty to some other person. In view of all the circumstances, His Honor was of opinion that it would be in the best interests of the children that they should remain, at any rate for the present, in the care and custody of the mother. It would be as well for her to understand that if her future habits and mode of fife were such as to jeopardise the welfare or morals of the children, the Court had ample jurisdiction to. remove them, and would not hesitate in the event of necessity.