HUSBAND'S DIVORCE SUIT.
" I WISH TO RE-MARRY." THE MYSTERIOUS 'MISS X." j "I desire to re-marry, so that I will he properly cared for," was the state-,, meut made by a petitioner for divorce ill' the Supreme Court at Wellington, before Mr. Justice Sim. Tlje petition was based on the section of the Divorce and Matrimonial Caused Act amendment of last year, which gives the court discretion to annul a marriage on tbe ground of public interest. A third party iv the suit, a "Miss X." was said to have been responsible for the domestic trouble in the petitioner's family, he having occupied the same houee with her for some
time. Marshall John Donnelly asked for dissolution of hie marriage with Ilughena. Jessie Donnelly on the ground that a judicial separation had been in force for three years. The petitioner was represented* by Mr. J. J. McGrath, and Mr. M. Myers and Mr. 0. G. G. Wateon acted for the respondent. Tlie parties, according to the petitioner's evidence, were married in 1801, and there were two children of the marriage. The parties were judicially separated in September, 1918, and since then his wife had only spoken to- him once. Before the separation they had been unhappy. Petitioner alleged that his wife hiwl "neglected him. He was an invalid and needed careful attention, which she had not given; she had liked going to the races much tetter than attending to him in his trouble. When he told her of his intention to seek a divorce, she said, '"You might as well wait until 1 die." Petitioner had announced his intention of re-marrying. "I must have someone to take care of mc." ho added, explaining that lie was unable to keep his balance while walking owing to the nature of his complaint. Ordered to Rotorua, lie was accompanied by the woman who was alleged to be the cause of trouble. Counsel would not give Hip court the name of the woman. "We must identify her in some way."' said his Honor. "Call bur "Miss X.' Is she single or married?" "Single." replied Mr. McC.rath. "We'll call her 'Mies X.' There's not much in a name." Cross-examined liy Mr. Myers, petitioner admitted he had stayed in Sydney with "Miss X." at a leading hotel where they were known as "Mr. and Mrs. Donnelly." Ife denied that "Mies X" had bought goods and charged them to Mrs. Donnelly. He admitted that at tlie hogpiUd in Rotorua "Miss X" was known as Mrs. Donnelly, but denied that tlu\v had occupied the same cabin on the boat coming across. "I want to re-marry so as to have someone to look after me,' he repeated. He-examined, petitioner admitted that ••Miss X" had travelled to Sydney with him in hi* cabin ac a nurue. He admitted that peoj.'e had often called her "Mr*. Donnelly." but he had never introduced her as such. In Sydney, as it was necessary for her to be i» his room as a nurse, he decided to "book in" as "Mr and Mrs. Donnelly."
RESPONDENT'S EVIDKNC'K
Mr~. Donnelly eakt that for >n»»yj year? she had assisted tier husband in carrying on an hotel business, working sometimes until after midnight. Whatever money the petitioner made, was made in the hotel business. In 1918. Iht husband and herself were carrying ou the City Hotel, and it wa* then ■that the first trouble occurred with '•MiM X," who had stayed at the hotel. The petitioner had left lII© hotel without telling respondent anything about it "MUs X," left the hotel live or 6ix months before respondent"* hiwband did. Hβ had not allowed her an adequate amount to keep hereelf and her daughter. Respondent, as a member of the Church of Knglund, objected to divorce. Respondent added that she had loved her husband until "Mies X' came on the scene, and, in addition, gave her husband a chance to 'turn the other woman down."' She did not etrike '-Miss X" in the street with a etick, but hit her with a strap. '"Mies X"' began proceedings against witness to keep the peaw. but they were withdrawn. ~ "I'll take care of him now, she saw, when asked if she would take her husband back if »<' loft th« woman n<> was living with.
A DAUGHTER'S STORY
Evelyn Donnelly, a daughter of the parties, eaid that* since her fathers return from Rotorua. he had lived in Manners Street with i; Mies X." When witness attempted to ring him up ehe liad been rudely -spoken to by "Mice X. She had written to her father to inquire how he was. ; Mißs,X r! woukl not let her near the house. When finally bhe managed to see her father he expressed suppriee at seeing her. "1 asked ■him why he was thinking of gorng for a divorce, and he answered that he wanted to be cure of having someone to look after him," said witne&a. 'I naid that I wae willing to look after him, but he said there were sonic tilings that a young girl could not do." After hearing argument, of counsel Ms Honor reserved his decision.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19211128.2.111
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 283, 28 November 1921, Page 9
Word Count
855HUSBAND'S DIVORCE SUIT. Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 283, 28 November 1921, Page 9
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.