THE DIVORCE LAW.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 June 1922, Page 6

THE DIVORCE LAW.

ON GUARD AGAINST COLLUSION. COURT MUST HAVE PROOF. During the hearing of an undefended divorce petition at Wellington on Tuesday, Mr. Justice Salmond laid down very clearly that the granting of a decre’e under section 3 of the 1920 Act was by no means a mere formality. The Court, said His Honor, must have some corroboration as to the facts; and in the absence of proof he would refuse to maket an order. Walter Ward applied for. a divorce from his wife, Kathleen Ward, on the ground of desertion. The case was undefended. Mr. J. R. Crombie, for petitioner, said the action was taken under section 3 of the 1920 Act. Walter Ward, farm laborer, laKapau, deposed that he was married on I November 11, 1918, while on active service with the New Zealand Forces. He returned in 1919, and lived with his wife till 1921, when he obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, with which his wife had not complied. To His Honor, petitioner stated that he was married in Glasgow' while on leave. He lived with his wife in her parents’ home, and after the armistice he brought his wife to New Zealand, and lived with her at Takapau. She left him in February, 1921. By Mr. Crombie: He ceased marital intercourse in July, 1919. His wife continued to refuse marital intercourse after that. His Honor.- You must give me some explanation as to the reason for your married life coming to an end. You are treating this matter as one of right. But it was not so. What were the circumstances? Mr. Crombie: The only evidence we can adduce is that of the petitioner. Petitioner said. that the only reason he could adduce for his wife’s refusal to live with him was her dislike of him. His Honor remarked that the petitioner must give some explanation of his married life. How his wife ran away, where she had gone, and where and how she was living. Petitioner said she was living WIUI friends, and he had been supporting her. In answer to counsel, petitioner said he neither gambled nor drank, and he worked regularly. The separation was not due to his fault or default. He knew of no reason for her conduct . His Honor: Why did you contribute to her support? You were not bound to keep a wife who runs away. Petitioner said he thougn? ne was bound to support her. Mr. Crombie was prepared to produce any evidence of character or corroboration the Court required, but it was impossible to get corroboration as to marital relations. His Honor: What have the relations been since? What is the woman doing, and where is she living? How came you to separate? Is there any correspondence? Have you no other evidence ? Mr. Crombie said he had no other evidence. He could produce testimony as' to character. Petitioner was of good reputation. There was no defence, and no wrong was alleged on the part of the petitioner. His Honor: The facts must be proved. It might be that both were anxious to get a divorce and adopted this method. There must be some corroboration. He could not grant applications of this nature. Mr. Crombie said it was a difficult matter —in fact, impossible—to get corroborative evidence as to marital relations. His Honor: Perhaps so; but some 1 corroboration is necessary from out- ; siders. I Mr. Crombie: Then you require corj roboration, Your Honor? His Honor: You must get a more i detailed statement of what has occurred, so as to enable the Court to judge. 1 The case is adjourned sine die, with leave to bring it before me again.