A PROBLEM OF DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 71, 23 March 1916, Page 6

A PROBLEM OF DIVORCE.

■ 62-TEAB-OLD PARTIES. QUESTION OF MAINTEXAXCE. FRYIXG-PAX TO FIRE. An Onehunga couple who have been separated by a decree of divorce at the age of 62 created an interesting problem I for Mr. Justice Stringer to decide in the Auckland Supreme Court to-Jay. I Tbe -parties were Margaret O'Kecfe and Thomas O'Kecfe. and on behalf of the former Mr. K. Brookfield applied for 1 an order for permanent maintenance. The circumstances outlined by counsel were that the parties, after twelve years! of marriage, were separated as long ago 'as 18S7. Prom that date until 1914 the. wife maintained herself without any I j assistance from the husband by dressmaking and sewing. Through failing eyesight she -was unable to earn her living! any longer, and accordingly brought proceedings before tbe Magistrate's Court 1 for maintenance, and the case was 1 eventually settled out of Court by • the husband agreeing to pay. 7/6 a week.] 'Immediately after, however, he brought l divorce proceedings against his wife for desertion, and a decree nisi was granted, the maintenance allowance then ceasing. On the divorce proceedings being brought Mrs. O'Keefe applied for an old age pension, but this was refused by Mr. Cutten pending the result of an application by the wife for permanent maintenance. Counsel added that both parties were 62 years of age, and the woman had been taking care of her blind brother and imbecile sister, and up to a short time ago was in receipt of a certain amount from her hrothens. who were maintained by their son 6. The boys had now gone on active service, and Mrs. O'Keefe w»s without this source of income. Mr. Brookfield added that the applicant only received 2/6 per week now in j addition to the few shillings she earned. I Mr. J. R. Lundon, appearing for the respondent, pointed out that O'Keefe did \ not bring the divorce proceedings until j threatened by what he considered to be an unjust claim for maintenance by the woman who had deserted him. I His Honor: I gather that he had religious objections to divorce which were overcome by the consideration of 7/6 a week. Mr. Lundon suggested that applicant should first divest herself of the responsibility of keeping her sister and brother before she approached the Court for maintenance for herself. His' Honor observed that he thought at the hearing of the case, and thought still, that the man should pay 7/6 a week after having escaped for so many year*. Counsel, for the applicant suggested that the amount should be reconsidered, as Mrs. O'Kecfe had accepted an inadequate sura without receiving any independent advice. O'Keefe was then caller) upon to give evidence. He admitted that he earned £2 8/. occasionally attended race meetings, lived with his sister and brother in a house rent-free, and also cutlivated a section which was free of rent. Replying to the counsel, he emphatically- declared that it was not his intention to marry a certain lady in Onehunga—not after his experience. His Honor made an order for 12/6 a week to be paid. DIVORCE. Decrees absolute were granted by Mr. Justice Stringer in the Auckland Supreme Court this morning in the following divorce cases:—George Boot (Mr. Hall Skelton), v. Norencc Maud Boot; Tom A, Jackson <Mr. Stilling) v. Edna Amelia Jackson and Arthur Seymour; •Ellen Mary Mackenzie (Mr. "E. ■)'. Mahoncy), v. Hector Charles Mackenzie; May Florence Dive (Mr. B. P. Cahjll) v . William Evans Dive; Wilhelmina Caroline Lack (Mr. B. P. Cahill). Custody of the children was granted in each case, subject to the respondents being given leave to apply for access.