SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27993, 13 June 1956, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

Wife Seeks Judicial

Separation

HUSBAND CROSS-PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE •

Gladys Ruby Davies, a married woman (Mr P. Alpers), petitioned in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Adams for a judicial separation from James Preston Davies, a public accountant (Mr H. S. Thomas), on the ground of desertion.

Davies cross-petitioned for divorce from his wife 'on the ground of an agreement to separate. Mrs Davies opposed this.

After evidence had been given by both parties, the hearing wds adjourned to this morning.

The parties were married on December 22. 1945. and lived in Christchurch. There were two children of the marriage. said Mr Alners. slating the case for Mrs Davies. The husband's mother arrived from England just before the birth of the first child. Mrs Davies thought that her htisband’s mother would be staying with them temporarily. but it turned into a permanent arrangement, with some unfortunate consequences. In August. 1951, her doctors advised her to go home to her parents for a rest. There had been no friction up to that time and sh? was astonished when her husband made arrangements for them to go to see a solicitor.

Thev went to see Mr E. M. Hay. and Mrs Davies was surprised to find herself confronted with a full-scale separation agreement, in t which she was to have custody of the younger child and her husband was to have custody of the older one. said Mr Alpers. She refused to sign it. On August 30. 1951. Mrs Davies went to her parents’ home in the North Island for an extended holiday.

The husband alleged that there was a verbal agreement to separate on January 27. 1952. said Mr Alpers. Mrs Davies would say that she at no time agreed to a separation. On January 28. 1952, the husband instructed his solicitor to prepare a fresh separation agreement.

Mr Alpers said that a copy reached him the following day, and he wrote a letter rejecting it. Mrs Davies’s principal reason for petitioning for judicial separation was to have maintenance fixed by the Supreme Court. She was opposed, on the ground of

conscience, to divorce, and that was why she was resisting t her husband’s cross-petition for divorce. Mrs Davies gave evidence on those lines.

Case for Respondent Mr Thomas said that the case for the respondent was that there was a verbal agreement to separate in August, 1951. The discussion on January 27, 1952, was only an extension, or at most a variation, of the original agreement to separate. There was no doubt that there was some agreement, in Aucust, 1951. that the wife should go away, and the second agreement in January. 1952. was some corroboration of that. The only thing the wife objected to was the signing of the agreement and not the separation itself

Davies, in evidence, said that from March. 1949. things did not go very well with his married life. There was a continual bad atmosphere in the home. His wife showed dissatisfaction at his continuing his studies, attending business meetings at night, and political matters. In 1951, the position became so untenable that he considered the only solution was a separation. In August; 1951. he and his wife discussed a separation. He consulted a solicitor and then discussed the question aeain with his wife on August 26 or 27. They both agreed that the position was untenable. His wife told him to instruct his solicitor to draw up an agreement to separate on the basis of their discussion and she would sign it.

Davies said he and his wife went to see Mr Hay. who showed them a copy of the agreement he had drawn up. Thev were both prepared to sign it. but Mr Hay advised his wife to have separate legal advice and arranged for her to see Mr Alpers on the question of custody of the children. Later his wife said she was prepared to sign an amended agreement if they cnuld agree on maintenance, custody of the children, and division of assets. An agreement was drawn up and his wife said she would it when he saw her on January -8. 1952. They both went to Mr Hay’s office to sign it. and he. was then told that his wife would not sign the agreeThe case was then adjourned to this morning, when counsel will address the Court.