Supreme Court “Nod Of Head Not Proof " Of Separation Agreement”

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28529, 7 March 1958, Page 26

Supreme Court “Nod Of Head Not Proof " Of Separation Agreement”

Unspoken acquiesence, such as a nod of the head, was not clear proof of a separation agreement, said Mr A. C. Perry in the Supreme Court yesterday during the hearing of a petition for divorce before Mr Justice Adams. Mr Perry was appearing for the respondent Gladys Norgaard Black, who was contesting the petition of her husband, Lindsay John McFarlane Black, a surgeon (Mr J. B. Weir). The petitioner alleged that a verbal separation agreement was made by him and his wife in October, 1948, that they had been living apart for more than seven years, and that a reconciliation was unlikely. The separation agreement was denied by the respondent, wtfo alleged in her answer that her husband had wilfully deserted her and that their living apart had been caused by his wrongful conduct in associating with another woman. The hearing opened on Wednesday and will be resumed today when cross-examination df the respondent will continue. Further evidence has yet to be called by the petitioner in rebuttal of the respondent’s allegations. Mr Perry said that the respondent denied that there had ever been a separation agreement. She had regarded herself throughout as Black’s wife and the whole of the domestic trouble had been caused by Black’s association with another woman. The association had started in Gisborne probably in 1948. It was when Black’s wife confronted him with the association that hef had left home, said Mr Perry. The association continued when Black went to England and when he returned to New Zealand. Referring to the night on which the petitioner alleged the separation agreement was made, Mr Perry said that this meeting was sought by Mrs Black and her relatives. Black had said that his wife was the sort of person who would never agree to a separation, and it was therefore unlikely that there would have been an agreement to separate. There was no clear proof of an agreement and the case for a separation could not rest on inconsistent witnesses and unspoken acquiescence such as a nod of the head, said counsel. Wife’s Evidence In evidence Mrs Black said that the matrimonial relations between her and the petitioner had been quite good until early 1948. That year on her husband’s suggestion she had gone for a holiday. When she returned to Gisborne unexpectedly Black seemed annoyed and said he did not feel he was a suitable type to be married. The witness said that Black wanted her to take their three children and go, but she had re-

fused. At the meeting with her husband in the house of a friend she had not agreed to a separation. They had not lived together since that meeting. Mrs Black said that when she met her husband again in Wellington in 1952 he told her he was desperately in love with a woman with whom he had been associating at Gisborne and wanted to marry her. He had asked the witness if she would agree to a divorce and she told him she would not. Cross-examined by Mr Weir, Mrs Black said she did not now believe that under the existing circumstances a reconciliation with her husband was possible. This was the first time she had expressed that view. She said she opposed the decree because her husband meant a good deal to her.