Supreme Court Ground For Withholding Decree Nisi To Be Argued

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28630, 5 July 1958, Page 4

Supreme Court Ground For Withholding Decree Nisi To Be Argued

Before granting the decree nisi, to which he held that the husband was entitled, Mr Justice Adams stated, in a reserved decision yesterday, that he wished to hear counsel on the question whether the Supreme Court had power . - . to refuse the decree until proper provision was made to ensure that the wife and three daughters of the marriage would have a suitable home and be adequately provided for. The petitioner, Lindsay John McFarlane Black, a surgeon, Bought a divorce from Gladys Norgaard Black. The hearing was in March. He claimed that there was a verbal agreement for a separation, made in October. 1948, and that he and his wife had been living apart for more than seven years, and that a reconciliation was unlikely. The respondent alleged that she and her husband had been living apart because of his wrongful conduct in associating with another woman, and further that he had wilfully deserted her since 1948.

Question of Agreement The husband had not succeeded in convincing him that there was a verbal agreement, although his mind inclined in that direction, said his Honour. But proof of such an agreement w r as not essential to his case as, subject to the wife's defences, the alternative ground of divorce—the sevenyear separation—was clearly established.

“The question whether there was or was not an agreement remains relevant in connexion with the wife’s defence of wilful

act or conduct consisting in desertion,” said his Honour. “But. the onus here rests on her. She has not satisfied me that there was no agreement, and I am accordingly unable to hold that the husband was guilty of desertion.”

He did not doubt that the husband had been neglecting his wife, partly because of the demands of his work, and partly because he had ceased to find her a congenial companion, said his Honour, but he was unable to find that there had been any association, other than a professional one, between the husband and a Miss Wood, up to 1948. “Real Cause of Breach” “The real cause of the breach in 1948 was not any wrongful conduct on the part of the husband, but a misconception on the wife’s part with regard to his supposed association with Miss Wood, the consequence of which was to exacerbate unhappy conditions already existing . . . and to bring them to the point of being intolerable from the husband’s point of view,” said his Honour. He felt uneasy, said his Honour, on the question of the interests of the wife and three daughters. The provision of a suitable home and furniture for it, for them, was of primary importance. “Before granting the decree nisi to which the husband is otherwise entitled, I desire to hear counsel on the question whether the Court has power . . to refuse the decree unless and until proper provision is made for them.” If section 18 of the Act did not meet the case, said his Honour, a condition might be imposed . . prohibiting the making of the degree absolute until appropriate provision was made. He accordingly adjourned the hearing for argument of those questions.