WIFE’S DIVORCE COSTS

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1926, Page 14

WIFE’S DIVORCE COSTS

NO ORDER AGAINST HUSBAND. CASE DESTITUTE OF MERIT. Auckland, No l .' 29. A wife who abandons a defence to a divorce action is not entitled to costs against her husband when a decree nisi is granted, if in the opinion 61 the Judge her case is without merit. This point was made clear by Mr. Justice Adams in the Supremo Court in dealing with the divorce petition of John Harold Lynch, bus driver, of Auckland, against Duleio Joyce Lynch, Herbert Kane, bus driver, of Birkenhead, being cited as co-respondent. Earlier in the session respondent obtained an adjournment of the hearing on the ground of shortness of notice, and an intimation was also made on her behalf that the case would bo defended and that a jury would be required. When the case was called to-day, Mr. Dickson, for respondent and co-respon-dent, intimated that the defence had been withdrawn and that the petition could go ahead as an undefended ease. His client had denied the allegation of adultery, and he submitted that she was entitled to her costs up to the time of withdrawal of the defence. Petitioner’s counsel (Mr. Northcroft) submitted that this was a case in which the husband should not be ordered to

pay the wife’s costs. He contended that respondent had no defence and never coulcl have had a defence to the action. Thg case was then heard and a decree nisi, to be made absolute after the expiratioyi of three months, was granted. His Honour said that he proposed to exercise the discretion vested in Judges by the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, and refuse to make an order for costs against the husband. It was laid down that a wife’s case must have some special and meritorious aspects before she could obtain costs against her petitioning husband, and in his opinion the present case was one destitute of merit.