SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23789, 7 November 1942, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

DIVORCE CASES HEARD

It was admitted in a petition for permanent maintenance that came before Mr Justice Northcroft in Christchurch on Thursday that both parties to a marriage in 1939 had given incorrect ages. “This marriage probably failed through the fault of neither party.” said his Honour. "It had the seeds of its own disruption in it from the beginning.” . ... The petitioner was Flossie Elizabeth Anne Hanna, of Rangiora (Mr F. W. Johnston), and the respondent. David Hanna, caretaker, of Christchurch (represented by Mr D. J. Hewitt). When their marriage took place in Christchurch on June 2, 1939, it was stated the bridegroom had given his age as 50 when he was actually 59. The bride admitted to being 37, whereas she was 39. The marriage was annulled on February 27. 1942, by Mr Justice Northcroft on the wife’s petition. The petitioner now claimed that her health was delicate, and she asked the Court to award permanent maintenance. After hearing evidence as to the respective means of the parties, his Honour said it was difficult to decide between them. However, he did not think that the husband should have his small income diminished in order to aid the wife. "I do think that this marriage was clearly a piece of folly.” he commented. “Both were untruthful as to their age.” The Court's ruling was that the husband should permit his wife to retain certain furniture belonging to him, failing which he would have to pay her £SO in full settlement of his obligation. There was no order as to costs.

Petition Dismissed. “I am bound to say that I regard the wife as an entirely reliable witness and the husband as unreliable," said Mr Justice Northcroft when dismissing the petition of William Henry Goreley. caretaker, of Christchurch, for restitution of conjugal rights with his wife, Ethel Hannah Goreley. His Honour held that the wife

was Justified in leaving her home because of her husband’s conduct, and refused an order for her return. Mr Roy Twyneham appeared for the petitioner, and Mr K. M. Gresson for the respondent. It was stated that the parties were married in London in 1924, and subsequently lived in Christchurch. There was one son of the marriage, William Goreley, who gave evidence in support of his mother. Both witnesses stated that> the home was such an unhappy one, owing to the husband’s peculiar temper, that they had been forced to leave it in 1941. To her counsel. Mr Gresson, the respondent stated that she was in fear of the petitioner. His Honour: The wife has quite justified her conduct in leaving home. The petition will be dismissed with costs against the respondent. Decrees Absolute A decree absolute was made in the separation suit of John Kenneth Gibson, carpenter, of Christchurch, against Una Evelyn Gibson, of Christchurch, respondent. The parties were married at Woolston on June 7, 1933, and there was one child of the marriage. They subsequently parted, and the petitioner is now in the Navy. Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for petitioner and Mr A. W. Brown for the respondent. A similar decree was granted in connexion with the petition on the same grounds of Henry Thomas Joynt Thacker, farmer, of Okain’s Bay, against Muriel Nancy Thacker, to whom he was married at Gebbie's Valley, Banks Peninsula, on April 11, 1928. There were two children of the union, and the parties separated in 1938.