MUTUAL DECREES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 48, 25 August 1943, Page 7

MUTUAL DECREES

Mutual or simultaneous decrees nisi were granted to both the petitioner and the respondent in a defended divorce case heard in the Supreme Court on Monday by the Chief Justice <Sir Michael Myers). The petitioner was Niel Peder Kristian Holbeck, soldier, of Trentham (Mr. A. J. Mazengarb), and the respondent was Katherine Holbeck (Mr. A. M. Cousins). The ground of the petition was an agreement for separation which had been in force for three years and upwards. Opposing the petition, the respondent contended that the separation had been brought about by the wrongful acts of the petitioner in that he had been guilty of cruelty towards her for some time prior to the agreement for separation and had failed to provide her with adequate maintenance after the first three years. At the instance of his Honour, the respondent was allowed to amend her plea to include a petition for divorce, and after hearing the evidence his Honour granted the mutual decrees. He commented that it appeared to be a case of "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other," or, as it now went, "50-50." The parties had chosen to enter into an agreement to separate, knowing that after three years either could sue for divorce. Seeing that both parties had agreed to a separation, if they both wanted a divorce they were entitled to it.

The petitioner was ordered to pay the respondent £20 costs and disbursements.

MCKAY'S CROSSING Referring to an item of £35,150 on the Supplementary Estimates for the Paekakariki-McKay's Crossing railway duplication, Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) asked in the House of Representatives last night whether steps could be taken to eliminate the very bad crossing' over the railway at that point.

Mr. Poison said there was a rightangle crossing, and he thought that while the present repairs to the main road were being carried out opportunity might be taken to put the road straight through to Paekakariki. That would eliminate the railway crossing altogether. He suggested that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Semple) might look at the position and see what could be done.

Mr. Semple said that he was aware of the dangers of the crossing. He had considered steps to get rid of that crossing three or four years ago, but on account of the Railway Department not being agreeable at that time nothing could be done. He was inclined to think that Mr. Poison was right, and he would get a report on the question.