DEEDS OF SEPARATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 14, 17 January 1905, Page 5

DEEDS OF SEPARATION.

INTERESTING MAGISTERIAL. DECISION. In giving his decision this morning upon an application by Ada Martha Pritchard for a separation from her husband, William David Pritchard, and a maintenance order against him, Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.. dealt with an interesting point which had been raised on behalf of the defendant by Mr J. C Martin, viz., that a deed of separation having been entered into by mutual consent in September last, the application to the Court for a separation order and maintenance was unnecessary. 11 is Worship stated that the deed provided that Pritchard should pay his wife £ 1 weekly, or more if he was able, the complainant to have the custody of the children and to do all she could to maintain them. His Worship said he considered that the complainant had never seriously made any attempt to maintain the children in accordance with the deed, and the children were, and had been for a week subsequent to the deed, living with the defendant. He must find that Mis Pritchard had not displayed towards the children the affection one would expect a mother to exhibit towards her ofl'sprimr. The defendant had on occasions molested his wife, contrary to the deed of separation, but the money due to the complainant under that deed had been paid. The point had been raised by Mr J. C. Martin, on behalf of the defendant, that the Police Court proceedings wore irrelevant, in view of the deed of separation, and His Worship quoted the remark of Mr Justice Gaggallay in a similar case, to the effect that it was iv the highest degree fresirable for the preservation of the peace and reputation of families that agreement* for separation should be encouraged rather than the parties shouhl be forced to expose their matrimonial differences in a Court of Justice. The question was whether the parties had contracted to live apart. Nothing could be clearer from the eross-exaisination of the complainant that, notwithstanding the breaches of the deed committed by both parties, "Jhey still considered themselves bound by its provisions. The parties were already separated by mutual agreement, and an order of separation under the Act was therefore superfluous. The complainant had stated that she desired no maintenance for herself, but only for the children, and ye,J. she hada neglected to maintain the children, although she had received money partly eet aside for that purpose. He was not convinced that the children's interests would be served by entrusting them to Mrs Pritchard, and he dismissed her complaint, without costs.