SUIT FOR DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 142, 15 June 1917, Page 6

SUIT FOR DIVORCE.

DECREE GRANTED RESPONDENT. An application for divorce from his wife, Susan Virgin Baron (Mr. W. D. Anderson), was made by Peter Barda (Mr. R. W. McConnell), at the Supreme Court before his Honor Mr. Justice Stringer to-day. Mr. McConnell stated that the case resolved itself into a question of whether the petitioner waa deserted by the respondent, or whether the respondent was deserted by petitioner. • The parties were married in Tasmania in 1004, and subsequently came to Auckland, where they lived for some years. Respondent kept a boarding-house, and petitioner worked in the country as a sawyer. This necessitated his being absent from home for lengthy periods. Subsequently, as the result of several incidents which occurred during his absence, petitioner bought a farm at Port Charles, CoromandeL His wife, however, refused to go there, and he sold out and came back to Auckland. On his return his wife refused to live with him or to allow him in the boarding-house. He bought a house and asked her to come there and live with him, but she refused, and had refused to live with him since. She had sued him for maintenance, and the case waa dismissed. Then she sued him for a separation order and maintenance, and an order was made for th« maintenance of the children.

His Honor delivered judgment this morning. He stated that it was exceedingly doubtful whether either party was entitled to relief. With some hesitation he had decided that respondent's answer must be amended by adding a prayer for the dissolution of marriage to paragraph 1 of her answer, and that the decree must 'be made in her favour on that, ground. The petitioner admitted that for five years he had failfcd to contribute to his wife's support, aud that he had during that time absented himself from his wife. Petitioner had failed to satisfy his Honor that the alleged offers to provide his wife with a • home were such as she might reasonably or prudently have accepted. He would therefore grant a decree nisi to the respondent, with the custody of the children mentioned, and costs against the petitioner amounting to ,C 2,").