QUESTIONED BY JUDGE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 10 March 1943, Page 4

QUESTIONED BY JUDGE

USE OF “WRONG COURT.” FOR DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) BLENHEIM, This Day. When a divorce case in which the petitioner resides in Christchurch and the respondent in Wellington, came before Mr Justice Northcr>ft in the Supreme Court, he promptly demanded to know why the proceedings were brought in Blenheim. “It was done to avoid publicity,” said petitioner’s counsel. His Honour: “The law requires that divorce proceedings shall be taken in open court. It is wrong to use the wrong court for the purpose of avoiding publicity. I only ask you to intimate to the solicitors who did it that it is a highly improper proceeding.” The case was adjourned for the production of further evidence. The parties were Alma Jane Marris, Christchurch, and Eric Charles Augustus Marris, Wellington, journalist. In a subsequent case, in which Peter Henry Shipman, company director, Wellington, was granted a decree nisi, his counsel explained that the case was brought off in Blenheim as the most convenient place, in view of .the fact that petitioner was constantly travelling about the Dominion. His Honour: “I still think Blenheim a strange place of convenience, in view of the fact that his home is in Wellington .. . Was it done for the purpose of reducing publicity?” Petitioner: “No, I have nothing to fear from publicity.” The Judge: “Very well.”