JUDGE’S STRICTURES ON PLAINTIFF

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25207, 11 June 1947, Page 3

JUDGE’S STRICTURES ON PLAINTIFF

PETITION FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS “The petitioner gave his evidence very ably, and met very plausibly in advance the evidence which he evidently expected to be given against him. I do not believe his evidence, ’ said Mr Justice Fleming in his reserved decision in the case in w c hich Huia John Anderson Hill, farmer, of Whitecliffs, brought a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Sarah Hill. "He states he loves his wife and desires very much that she should return to him. She would be justified in retorting, if her broken spirit would permit her to do so: ’lt may be you re forced to dissemble your love, but why do you kick me down-stairs?’ ” continued the judgment. "Mr Young asked me to scrutinise respondent’s evidence carefully, because he contended the wife would not have lived with her husband for four vears if his conduct had been as stated. *As a result of her endurance, she is in a most pitiable nervous condition. The respondent is much too tender a plant to be ordered to return to this harsh and sadistic man. The petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the higher scale, with disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar.” When the case was heard on June 5, the petitioner was represented by Mr R. A. Young, and the respondent bv Mr R. P. Thompson.