DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 69, 21 March 1919, Page 6

DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE.

j A -.IESTION- OF PATKRXITV. A defended divorce action. Michael Hartneady tMr. K. Malumvj ,■ Kilen jlfartneady (Mr. ./. H. Il.ddow was I heard at the Supreme Court thi« morn | ing by Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of j1- rhe ground of the petition was mis- | conduct, the petitioner alleging that the I respondent had given birth to a child Tour .-.ears after he had l„-,.„ separated ; trom her by a magistrate's order. The ; petitioner stated that the marriage took ! place in 1001. and two children were iborn. !n 19U his wife secured a separation order at the I'uk-kolie Magistrates |( ourt. and went to live in town. He I was ordered to pay her _.->/ a week, and .did so. >~„,,. months afterwards he .visited her house at Parnell. and a-ked |to be allowed to 5,,,. t t„, children, but ,she would not permit this. He was i never in her company after this and i could not be the father of the child ! which was l,„m to her last June she did not inform him either that the rhi'd was expected, or that he had been born. | lhe respondent gave evidence that the I separation was due to her husband's per jsistent drunkenness and cruelty. She I stated that in September. 101 T. he called jat her house in town, and induced her to take him in by saying that he was goin-r lon active service. She denied mfsoon" I duct, and averted that the petitioner was the father of the chlid. fihe did not ; write to him because he was unable to ; read.