AFTER EIGHT YEARS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 228, 26 September 1930, Page 9

AFTER EIGHT YEARS.

COUPLE MEET IN COURT.

dissolution of marriage.

CROSS-PETITION SUCCEEDS,

A wife who appeared as the respondent in divorce proceedings before Mr. Justice Reed in. the Supreme Court today became the petitioner after a shoit adjournment, and obtained the dissolution of her marriage. Although she and her husband had been in Auckland duiin'g the eight years they had lived apart they had not met until this moining. When the hearing of the case commenced Andrew McNeill, salesman (Mr. McLiver), was the petitioner, and Annie Elizabeth McNeill (Mr. J. F. Strang) was the respondent. The parties Meie married in January, 1894, and theic aie five children. In April, 1922, they agreed to separate. Petitioner said in evidence that he liad told his wife he did not want to be a burden to her. After their marriage they lived ?h Sydney for two years and came to Auckland in 1896. Prior to February, 1917, they lived in Ladies' Mile, Remuera. Then, on the suggestion of the respondent, they decided to sell tlie house and live in apartments in Grafton lload. Eight months later the petitioner went into Feathers ton Camp and was there until October, 1919. For part of that time his wife lived in Featherston. Both had been in failing health in the last two years before their separation. In January, 1920, the petitioner went to To Awamutu. '•My wife had money, but I was out of work/' said petitioner. When the petitioner returned from Auckland in 1921 he did not live with his wife, but he went to see her in the Auckland Hospital. It was there that they discussed living apart, in 1922. "I have not seen her from that day until this morning," the petitioner continued. She had been living only 100 yards from where he was working.. Under cross-examination the petitioner said the children had held the home together,for some years before 1922. Efforts to Maintain Wife. The petitioner was a land agent for a number of years, and when asked by counsel whether he was not frequently ■under the influence of drink, he said that when a deal was completed he naturally celebrated the occasion afterwards. . Mr. Strang: Did your wife complain to you about these habits of yours ?—No. In reply to further questions, petitioner said he had sought to keep the home going, and, although his means were sometimes very slender, he made an effort to maintain his wife and family. His wife had promised £100 to him on ft certain condition, which he could not accept. While he was at Te Awamutu a maintenance order was made against him for £3 10/ a week, and he had made regular payments of 30/ a week. Mr. Strang submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that the petitioner had deserted his wife. "I have never seen him until to-day," said the respondent, in the witness-box. To Mr. McLiver: I am not going to say he was a burden to me. She admitted her husband had been to see her three times while she was in hospital in 1922 and they had not met again after the third time. Many times, she said, she had expressed a wish to see him, but she had never returned to him. "Almost Inconceivable." Mr. McLiver: You don't want him and never have since 1922?—1 am not saying that. ... „ Respondent could not recollect discussing with her husband the question of separation.' His Honor said it t seemed almost inconceivable, if there' had been no arrangement to live apart, that the wife liad not endeavoured to find out where her husband - was. i The Court was adjourned for a quarter of an hour for counsel to confer with the parties, and when the hearing* was resumed Mr. Strang said the wife had decided to move for the dissolution of her marriage on a cross-petition. This was granted. ■