DOUBLE PETITION FOR DIVORCE

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22197, 14 September 1937, Page 16

DOUBLE PETITION FOR DIVORCE

DESERTION ALLEGED BY BOTH PARTIES HUSBANDS CASE SUCCEEDS (PRESS ASSOCIATION TZiXOBAiI.) DUNEDIN, September 13. A double petition for divorce based on identical grounds—desertion—was before the Supreme Court to-day, the parties seeking the dissolution of a marriage which, in the words of counsel for the petitioner, had ceased to exist in fact seven years ago. The purpose of the litigation was to determine to whom the divorce should be granted. Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that while his client was anxious.that she should be granted a divorce, she would infinitely prefer the success of her husband's petition to no divorce at all. She was anxious that her own petition, if unsuccessful, should not prejudice her husband's case. Counsel explained that there was intense bitterness between the parties, 1 and that there could therefore be no suggestion whatever of collusion in any shape or form. The petition, which was heard by Mr Justice Kennedy, was brought by Wilhelmeina Jane Elder Seymour against Roland Seymour, the grounds for relief being two separate allegations of desertion. Respondent's answer was a denial of the desertion charges, and allegation of desertion by the petitioner. Mr W. M. Taylor appeared for the petitioner, and Mr C. J. L. White for fee respondent. Mr Taylor said tha,t the evidence would show that the wife actually left the family in 1930, and had not since returned, the result being constructive desertion. Respondent had filed an answer denying all the petitioner's grounds for relief, and praying for a divorce himself on the grounds of his wife's desertion. The respondent, counsel said, went overseas with the New Zealand forces, and married the petitioner in Scotland in 1919. The parties came out to New Zealand and there were three children of the marriage. In February, 1930, the petitioner left the respondent, and the parties had lived apart ever since. In May, 1930, the wife proceeded against her husband for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders, but the Magistrate refused all but the maintenance application, fixing the amount at 30s a! week. Frequent litigation between the parties had followed. A great deal of bitterness had been engendered between the husband arfd wife. The parties had been living apart for seven years, and both were desirous of getting a divorce, so that the only dispute between them was who should get the divorce. Counsel assured the Court that no relevant evidence or information would be withheld. The petitioner, however, had asked him to emphasise that although she was anxious that the divorce should be granted to her, she would infinitely prefer the success of her husband's petition to the granting of no divorce at all. The position was that both parties? were

anxious to secure the dissolution of a marriage which had ceased to exist in fact seven years ago. All that was required was the severance of the legal tie, and counsel quoted authorities in support of his submission that such action should be taken by the Court. After hearing evidence his Honour rejected the prayer of the wife's petition, and the Court proceeded to .a hearing of the respondent's answer, which included a prayer for the granting of a divorce to him. Having heard the evidence tendered in respondent's behalf, a decree nisi was granted him, to be moved absolute at the end of three months. As the petitioner's case failed, no costs were allowed.