JUST CAUSE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 292, 10 December 1936, Page 14

JUST CAUSE.

HUSBAND LEFT WIFE.

DECISION BY JUDGE,

UNUSUAL CASE DECIDED. '"The tie of marriage cannot be lightly severed against the wish of one of the parties to it," stated Mr. Justice Fair yesterday afternoon in deciding not to grant the petition for judicial separation brought by Emily Maud Clare against Charles Vavau Clare, retired engineer. The petition was based on the ground that the respondent deserted his wife in April, 1033. The husband denied desertion and contended that he had left her with just cause, this being her insulting and abusive conduct. Mr. Singer and Mr. Inder appeared for the respondent, and Mr. Sullivan and Mr. YV inter for the petitioner.

After stating that a petition for judicial separation was an unusual action his Honor explained what was the result of it, and how it absolved the spouse from marital obligations. In former days, before legislation provided for a divorce being more readily obtained, it was a procedure frequently invoked. Nowadays tlie usual procedure, wliero one party had suffered a wrong, was to obtain a divorce. There might, however, be cases where the old procedure was still correct and a proper one Jo invoke. The results of a decree of this sort were unfortunate unless there was a prospect of the parties coming together again. With the result ox a decree so serious the burden of proof was correspondingly heavy, added his Honor. In tho present case the onus was on the petitioner to satisfy the Court beyond reasonable doubt that her husband did leave her without just or reasonable cause. On the facts his Honor found that she had failed to discharge that onus.

The case was a painful one, for the I parties had lived together from 1902 to 1033. It appeared from the evidence I that the petitioner was, unfortunately, of a very jealous disposition and quick tempered. His Honor said that he accepted in the main the evidence of the husband as correct. The petitioner's evidence must be viewed with caution, and his Honor said he could not rely on it in support of her case because she had shown a lack of frankness and a desire to conceal some of the facts, which under cross-examination she had admitted. Over a certain period when tiie parties lived in harmony the husband was generous to his wife and provided her with a good home. The evidence had not established that lie was quick tempered and used bad language, •as alleged. His Honor added that the petitioner j must have known why her husband left and she h.ad not shown that, in determining to sever relations, he had acted j without reasonable cause. In these circumstances it was not necessary for the judge to decide which way he would have exercised his discretion if the discretion lay with him. Perhaps, however, he should indicate that if he had been called upon "that discretion would' have been exercised against granting the decree, because it appeared that no useful purpose would be served by granting it. His Iloi.rfir dismissed the petition for judicial separation, and allowed the wife £35 costs and witnesses' expenses.