REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 266, 9 November 1932, Page 9

REFUSED.

DIVORCE PETITION.

DOCTOR IN APIA. ——— . ■ . . „, WIFE'S SUCCESSFUL DEFENCE. " MAN WAS RESPONSIBLE." Matrimonial differences between a doctor and his wife were ventilated before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court to-day, when Albert George McClymont, medical practitioner, now in Apia, Samoa, petitioned, for a decree nisi against Amy Frances McClymont. The ground of the action was mutual separation extending over the statutory period of three years or more. The case was defended. Mr. G. P. Finlay appeared for petitioner (who was not present), and Mr. ! E. H. Northcroft for Mrs. McClymont. Mr. Finlay said the parties first met in 1908, and the marriage took place four years later. Petitioner, who ;n 15)11 was a photographic artist at Wellington, conceived the ambition of entering the medical profession, and was encouraged to do so by his fiancee. In 1911 he passed his preliminary examination, and on April 8, 1912, they were married. He studied as an extramural student, while carrying •on his photographic business, and in 1915 he went to the medical school of Otago University, taking his wife with him. The first child was born in April, 191(5. He was earning £3 12/ a week at his business and his wife supplemented this by keeping a shop until within a few months of the birth of the second child in May, 1918. At this time his wife's health was good, but she was neurotic. He came to Auckland at the end of 1918 and his wife also came here to; live with her ■ people, so that he could study for his bursary. In February,- 1918, he got an eppbiutment on the staff, of the Dunedin Hospital, and early' next year passed hie final examination. His wife re-joined-him in Dunedin in 1020. Next year she went to live in the .Nofth'-east Vallev, and- petitioner was a house Burgeon at Dunedin Hospital. Separated in 1921. Domestic differences began to 'develop 1 in 1921. Petitioner' was concentrating on getting further experience in, hia profession and his wife urged him to set. up in private practice. On September 6, 1921, the parties entered into a deed' of separation, and three weeks later petitioner went into private practice in -'HayeloeJ: . South. ; . Before Mrs. McClymont went to Dunedin in 1920 the correspondence- was- of an amicable nature. • Until - after the signing of the deed of separation, said counsel, there was no "suggestion of any other woman in the case. Mr. Northcroft said Mrs. McClymont had been subjected to a great deal of worry owing to difficulty in obtaining the money she was entitled to under the deed of separation. It was owing to the fear that these experiences would be ' petitioneiPgot aVdIV-OTce-that • ■she was..'opposing' his action."/ '••"■•'."' ' !■ Petitioner had gone: bankrupt, and a • new order had had to be/inade. '.-•• ; .-Mr. Finlay': As "a matter "of .fact, she ■'made him bankrupt. •. ' ; . His-Honor: It appears obvious that these two' should be divorced. . Mr.' Northcroft; I cannot express an bpinion aa to that, sir. Probably Mrs. McClymont would not object ,to . a divorce if she could see daylight regarding her maintenance. Mr.:Finlay: Petitioner has a Government job in Apia. He is prepared to -give an order on his salary; surely that ! is ample security, for there is .no likellihood'of'him. losing Ms job. , v His Honor said he thought the parties would be better divorced. If no agree; ment regarding security could, be entered into then he would have to decide--which of the parties was to blaine for the existing position. When Wife was Breadwinner. Mr. Northcroft said Mrs. McClymont was the-breadwinner for the family during the time petitioner was pursuing his : studies. The evidence was quite clear that after the separation he went away. to > Havelock with a woman who was his mistress. Counsel read extracts from a letter written by. petitioner.. In one passage he referred to the children, saying, "It will not be long before they grow up and ralise what their fatHpr has done. . . If you have any compassion, for God's sake divorce me, and I'shall he out of a life of sin." It was mentioned that the woman with whom petitioner went to Havelock after the separation died in 1929. Mr. Northcroft.read another passage from a letter by petitioner in which he wrote,."l make no excuse for what I have done. I only ask you to free me for the children's sake before it is too late." Giving evidence, Mrs. McClymont said that up to the time of the birth o* the second child she maintained the home and the children and her husband by keeping a shop. She kept the family going until the end of 1918. Then her husband told her he had arranged for her to go to her people in Wellington. She stayed with her sister from February, 1919, to May, 1920. During that time she was anxious to rejoin her husband, and she felt that she could do so as she had done previously. Her hueband told her not to do so, as that would "settle" his prospects. When she arrived in Dunedin, in February, 1920, her husband was cold in his manner towards her, and did not live with her. He would come and visit the home to see the children, but he did not show any desire to continue with her. "Sick at Heart." Cross-examined, Mrs. McClymont eaid she had not lived unhappily with her hueband, and had never had a row with him. When she went back to Dunedin she was not happy on account of his changed manner. There were no quarrels exactly, but he was much changed, and she asked him why. Witness denied that he had ever said he would not live "a cat and dog life" with her. "I felt sick at heart when he was in the home at Dunedin," said witness. He only came in for half-hours or hours. She was very pleased to see him. Sometimes he would come in every day, just pop in as he was passing, but he never had one meal with her, except an occasional cup of tea in the afternoon. Divorce was mentioned the day he came up and said he was going away from Dunedin. Witness said, "Do you love another woman?" He said, "Yes." Witness said, "Are vou taking her with you?" He eaid, "Yes." She asked him about the woman, but did not know who she was. There was, no discord between them when at Dunedin until lie told her about the other woman.

- ■. • Thrown Across the Room. - ■ When witness lived in Kew her husband came up one day, and she asked him why he was so different to her. He said, "I'll show you," and threw her across the room. She collapsed in a heap. That was only one instance of unhappiness, but it was the only instance of a quarrel. There had been no marital relation between herseif and her husband since she went away at his instigation. ( '' ' • Ina Caroline , Metsger, married, of Auckland, said she had known the parties for some twenty years. She knew Mrs. McClymont had been keeping a business and keeping her husband. Her husband had to travel a good deal about New Zealand. They lived happily until after Mrs. McClymont went back to Dunedin in 1920, when relations appeared to become strained. Witness gave evidence regarding an occasion when petitioner told her he was tired of his wife and was living a different kind of life and associating with a different kind of people. "I suggested," continued witness, "that bhe best thins he could do was to go and tell her, and I told him that he owed his success to her perseverance." Next day he came and saw witness and said he had broken the ice to his wife. Witness asked what Mrs. McClymont did, and petitioner said he had left her in hysterics. Witness si'id that was not a nice thing to do. and that he had told her so much voluntarily so she asked him if there was someone else. He said there was. • . Petition Dismissed. His Honor, dismissed the petition. He said clearly the man was responsible for the estrangement. "There seems to be ample evidence that his conduct was wrongful," said his Honor, "and I- think I must take the responsibility of deciding that he was the cause of the separation."