DIVORCE SUIT

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 21025, 29 November 1933, Page 5

DIVORCE SUIT

HUSBAND'S PETITION SUCCEEDS* WIFE WHO REFUSED TO LEAVE ENGLAND A man who travelled back to England to get married and then discovered that his wife would not come to New Zealand with him asked for a divorce in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Ostler yesterday morning. His wife, whose evidence was taken oh commission in England, cross-peti-tioned on the grounds that petitioner had deserted her through failing to maintain her. After hearing petitioner's evidence his Honour granted a decree nisi and dismissed the crosspetition. William Brown, engine smith, oi Christchurch, was the petitioner, and Margaret Brown, of Stratford, Essex, England, was the respondent. Mr F. D. Sargent, instructed by Mr T. S. Dacre, appeared for petitioner, and Mr W. J. Sim, instructed by Messrs Reece-Jones and Co., London, represented respondent. Petitioner stated that he had been married on January 2, 1927, to Margaret Brown, in Stratford, Essex, Lngland. He had, while living in New Zealand, twice nominated Margaret Brown as an assisted immigrant to come to the Dominion, but she had refused to make the journey by herself. In August, 1926, he had received a cable asking him to get leave from his employment with the New Zealand Railways and go to England. He had secured six months' leave and went to England in November, 1926. Respondent agreed to leave England and come to New Zealand as an assisted immigrant, and they were married. On February 2, 1927, shortly before they were due to sail for New Zealand, respondent refused to make the journey. Allegations of Desertion. Petitioner alleged that Margaret Brown had wilfully deserted him on February 2, 1927, without just cause and the desertion had continued. Petitioner left England on February 11, 1927, and resumed his employment m the Dominion. Respondent's answer to the petition denied desertion of the petitioner without just cause. She alleged that petitioner for three years and upwards had left her without reasonable maintenance. Petitioner had, she contended, therebv wilfully and without just cause deserted her. Respondent asked: la) That the petition be rejected; (b) that respondent's marriage with petitioner be dissolved; and (c) that petitioner be ordered to pay respondent's costs and those incidental to proceedings. Mr Sargent outlined the case as set out in the pleas, and said that it was agreed that one or the other of the parties should secure a divorce. It was a question as to which was entitled to it, or which had been deserted. Petitioner gave evidence according to the statement he had set out. His wife had informed him that she did not want him to keep her. Counsel's Submission. Mr Sim submitted that petitioner had no right to return to New Zealand and abandon his marriage. Petitioner had abandoned his wife and had not communicated with her. Counsel submitted that he had a duty to write to his wife and ask her to come to New Zealand if he had wanted her to come. Petitioner had made a ruthless decision which had amounted to desertion. His Honour reviewed the facts of the case. Respondent had led petitioner to believe she would come to New Zealand and he had gone to England to marry her on that understanding. "I am inclined to think that the opinion expressed by petitioner, that she never intended to come to New ! Zealand, but thought if she could get him into England he would get work there, is correct," his Honour said. Continuing, he said that it appeared that when the respondent found she could not keep her husband in England but would have to come to New Zealand with him, she had returned to her mother. An attempt had been made to show that she was too ill to travel, but she had met her husband, and if she could walk out to meet him she could have walked on to the boat. "In my opinion this is a clear case of desertion on the wife's part," his Honour said. "It is true that the husband, as he admits, might have been more patient than he was; he might have written to her in affectionate terms and offered to pay her passage out, but at the, same time it can be seen from her letters that she never intended to come out. so that to have written would have been useless." His Honour granted a decree ni:ti. to be made absolute after three months, the cross-petition being dismissed. Respondent was allowed costs on the lowest scale. i