DIVORCE GRANTED

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 119, 22 May 1945, Page 8

DIVORCE GRANTED

DAMAGES FOR PETITIONER JURY AWARDS SUM OF £350 No defence was offered by either the respondent or co-respondent in the Supreme Court when Wilfred Ernest Cromwell, a naval rating petitioned for divorce from Elaine Ruchene Cromwell on the ground of her adultery with Robin Adair. Petitioner claimed from the co-respondent £500 damages. The action was heard before Mr. Justice Callan, Mr. Garland appearing for petitioner.. Mr. Henry appeared for respondent and co-respondent, but said he had been instructed not to contest the action, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw. Permission to withdraw was granted. Petitioner said he marrie'3 respondent on September 16, 1942. He ■tfas in the Navy and left New Zealand two months later. He returned in February, 1943, but left again shortly afterwards, to return again in November, 1944. Two nights later his wife admitted adultery with Adair. On December 13, 1943, respondent gave birth to a child, and the birth certificate showed petitioner as father of the child, but whatever doubts he had about the paternity he kept to himself. She had admitted to him misconduct with Adair up to the time of the birth of the child, but not since. Ordered Off Premises Petitioner detailed visits he had mads to Brown's Bay, where respondent was living, and had found Adair there. Adair had ordered petitioner off the premises, saying that he had taken over the tenancy of the house. On January 31 last petitioner and his solicitor went to the house in Brown's Bay just after midnight and found respondent and Adair in the house. Respondent had drawn petitioner's weekly allotment of £4 7/6 up till January 4 last, when he had it stopped. The home had been broken up. He took furniture worth about £30, respondent having the remainder, but since he had cancelled her allotment she had purchased furniture to the value of £100 in his name. In addressing the jury, his Honor said that whatever amount the jury awarded he would hold up, as the question of paternity of the child might have to be argued. He did not think it a case where the full amount claimed should be given. The parties after marriage had lived only two months and a half together, and the husband had hardly turned his back when the wife formed an association with the co-respondent. Not very much, value could be placed upon her as a wife. The jury found that both respondent and co-respondent had committed adultery, and awarded petitioner £350 damages against the corespondent, with costs. Mr. Garland moved for judgment. His Honor granted a decree nisi, and entered judgment for £350 damages, if and ivhen collected to be paid into Court to. abide the further order of the Court.