PETITION FAILS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 280, 26 November 1941, Page 8

PETITION FAILS

LONG SEPARATION

WIFE'S RETURN SOUGHT

After a separation that had existed since 1912, Percy Owen Wheatley, clerk, of Auckland, petitioned in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Fair for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Alice Maud Wheatley. Mr. Noble appeared for petitioner and Mr, Finlay for respondent.

Petitioner alleged that his wife, whom he married on November 25, 1903, left him on March 10, 1912. In opposing the petition, respondent alleged that in the year 1912, when they were living at Stanley Bay, her husband deserted her and had continued to do so from that date. She alleged further that in the meantime he had lived with various women, each of whom posed and was allowed to pose bv petitioner as his wife.

Mr. Noble said petitioner alleged that his wife had made his life impossible when they lived together and had accused him of going about with other women: After their house was burned down, respondent had gone to live with a brother, his client going to board in the city. She would not let him return to her.

His Honor said it seemed strange that such a period of time should be allowed to lapse before action for restitution was taken. There was nothing to show that petitioner had taken any decisive steps over a long period of years. Something more would have- to be produced before the Court could make any order for the wife to return.

In evidence, petitioner said one of the reasons why he had not taken steps previously was that he was away from Auckland for 19i years. He had once come to Auckland for the purpose of getting his wife to agree to a divorce. He had been on friendly terms with his wife since 1912 and had seen her during annual holidays he spent in Auckland.

To Mr. Finlay he said he had agreed verbally to separate from his wife.

Mr. Finlay said it was obvious that petitioner was now asking for something he did not really want. To Mr. Finlay petitioner denied any wrongful association with other women, stating that they were only friends. He denied that he had gone to live with his wife with her brother when the fire occurred in 1912, and that he had walked out of the house and deserted respondent. Petitioner gave evidence that he had paid his wife maintenance over the period of separation, with the exception of a short break when he had been financially embarrassed through no fault of his own.

In dismissing the petition, his Honor said petitioner's evidence had weakened the case. It seemed, on the evidence, that there had been a verbal agreement to separate, and, further, correspondence produced by the defence revealed that petitioner admitted that the separation had been due to his own fault. In addition, petitioner had not shown his sincerity in his desire that he and his wife should live together. It seemed that his real purpose in the proceedings was to get a divorce.