CLAIM FOR ALIMONY.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 September 1922, Page 3

CLAIM FOR ALIMONY.

A DEFENDED SUIT. * NO ORDER MADE. When the jury in the action Dutton v. Up-son had retired at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman commenced the hearing of the claim for permanent alimony brought by Minnie Martin against Henry Edward Martin. Mr. C. H. Croker appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. R. Billing for the respondent. The parties were divorced on May 29, 1921, and the decree nisi was made absolute on August 29 of that year. After quoting authorities concerning delay in bringing actions for alimony after a decree had been made absolute, Mr. Croker stated that his client had had no knowledge that the decree had ibeen made absolute until after some time had elapsed. The application for permanent alimony had been made on February 27 last and he contended that it came within the reasonable time mentioned in the Act. The petitioner then entered the box and gave evidence concerning her means. She had had to borrow her passage money from Dunedin to come to New Plymouth for this case. Her health was not good. The witness also stated that the particulars set out in the counter-petition for divorce which ehe had withdrawn were true. Cross-examined by Mr. Billing, the witness declined to state the name of the persons for whom she had Ibeen working in Dunedin during the last 12 months. Her husband had paid her £l3 as alimony during the period between the granting of the decree nisi and the decree absolute. She had commenced two actions against him under the Destitute Persons Act, but these had been .abandoned. The witness agreed with Mr. Billing in the list of places he read in which the parties had spent their married life and attributed the constant movement to her husband, calling him “a jack-of-all-trades” in response to His Honor’s query as to his occupation. No evidence was called on behalf of the respondent. His Honor said that on the authorities quoted by Mr. Croker he had decided that the petition had been brought within a reasonable time, but he would not, however, make an order for payment of alimony. He further decided that on the authority contained in George v. George he would allow the case to stand over and would not dismiss it, so that, if the petitioner’s circumstances so altered that at any time she became in want through illness or otherwise, she could again apply to the Court for payment of alimony. Regarding costs. His Honor said he would make no order on behalf of the petitioner, unless Mr. Croker could submit to him authorities entitling him to do so.