A DIVORCE PRELIMINARY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 120, 23 May 1922, Page 5

A DIVORCE PRELIMINARY.

I'NDEFEXDRD CASES HEARD. Tin , unusual feature of each party in an undefended divorce action wUhing te vindicate their honour i>y Mnji cited apetitioner in the ca.-e wa< related in hii action which cam? In , fore Mr. .fuini-c Herdman this morning. Counsel, in inti mating that they were prepared to com promise on the point, stated that pro bably the reputation of a woman namore likely to be affected than that ot lier husband should she ]>p cited a« tinrespondent. Mr. (ahill, for the original petitioner, James Alex. Voting. manufacturing jeweller, explained that thr action was based on mutual separation Jor three years. After the wife had been served with the petition *he liled a counter petition on the same ground. The question therefore was who should be entitled to the decree, a* it w.ihardly worth while troubling a jury with "chasing the shadow.'" and recognisiiijr th*t the woman's reputation might lie the more prejudiced petitioner was now agreeable to being cited as respondent. The new petitioner (represented by Mr. Towle) testified that she \va* married in 1900, and lived with her hu< band until 19U. In that year by mutual consent the parties separated under a deed of separation, which had since been adhered to. She was not responsible for the separation. A decree nisi was granted. Kuphemia van Brunt next related her unfortunate marriage with Leonard lyric van She was married in 1916, hut next year her husband. posiiiL' as a Single man, went into camp, and. she Ifad to make application to thp military authorities to get her military allotment. Her husband returned from the war in lftlO, and she saw him once at the hospital, where she was ill. When she came out of the institution, three months later, she saw her husband again at Papakura, and althoi.°<;li her mother offered to build the pair a home the husband did not keep "nipromise to live with her. Shi 1 wa? now uncertain of his whereabouts. A decree was granted. William Stanley (Mr. Cahill) in his petition stated that he was married at Napier in 1898, and lived there with his wife, Catherine, until 1011. In April of that year his wife left for Wellington for a holiday, and as far as he was concerned she was still holiday makini. A I decree was granted.