MAN TWINCE MARRIED.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 167, 16 July 1924, Page 7

MAN TWINCE MARRIED.

DIVORCE BY CONSENT. QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE. FIRST WIFE'S CLAIM REJECTED. (By Telegraph.—Special to "Star.") CHRISTCHTJRCH, Tuesday. A case which it was stated may be expected to come before the Magistrate's Court frequently was dealt with at the Christchurch Magistrate's Court this morning. A man who had secured a divorce and rejnarried asked to be relieved of the responsibility of contributing to the support of his first wife. William Henry Harris* Hastings, a carrier, sought cancellation of an order made against him at Timaru in October, 1020, to pay £1 5/ per week to Ellen Harris. The solicitor for appellant said that the case was one which had arisen as the result of the new divorce laws. The parties had separated by mutual consent and subsequently secured a divorce. Complainant married again, and counsel submitted that, as a matter of policy, the man should be allowed to marry again. His former wife was in a position in which she could support herself, and in this connection counsel drew attention to evidence taken on commission. There were no children. Counsel for the detence submitted that Harris had taken on new responsibilities with his eyes open. Complainant was under the impression that, having married again, he would be relieved of all his responsibilities. He was getting £5 per week. Counsel admitted that, while the order might be reduced, it should not be cancelled. The Magistrate: It looks as if the order should be reduced. When a man has obtained a divorce, practically by consent, after living apart from his wife for a certain number of years, and he marries again, as he had a right to do, maintenance' of the second wife must come before that of his first wife. In reviewing the case the magistrate said it was rather of some importance, as an instance of a class which was likely to come before the Courts fairly frequently. It arose out of an amendment in the divorce laws. The defendant had an order against her husband for 25/ per week, and then they arranged to get a divorce, practically a divorce by consent after separation for three years, and he had contracted another marriage. He had a legal responsibility for tho maintenance of his wife at the time of the divorce, and at the present time the divorced wife was quite able to maintain herself. The ages of the parties did not appear in the papers, j but he presumed neither of them was | advanced in years. It seemed to 'him that since the making of the maintenance order the circumstances had so changed that the matter should be readjusted. The man had a wife whom he was legally bound to keep, and he had not an extensive income. It amounted to about the same as what the divorce* wife -oceived. She earned £4 a week and a bonus, and he earned £5- a week. The complainant's first duty was to his second wife, and it did not seem to be right or fair that he should have to contribute to' the maintenance of his divorced wife. It was a divorce by consent, apparently without cause on either side. The maintenance order would be cancelled. "I think I shall continue to treat them equally," said the magistrate in ordering each party to pay its own costs. .