BOLTON v. BOLTON

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 198, 23 May 1928, Page 6

BOLTON v. BOLTON

COMPLETE DIVORCE GRANTED

RESPONDENT HAS ACCESS TO CHILDREN

Palmerston North, May 2— In his reserved decision on the petition by Felix Stuart Hindmarsh Bolton, farmer, of Pnhiatua, for a decree absolute in the divorce from Eileen Bolton, heard at a recent sitting of the Palmerston North Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Ostler grants the petitioner his complete divorce, and although granting him as well permanent custody of the children, he has made an order that Mrs. Bolton should be able to see them on occasions. Petitioner has also to paj’ maintenance to respondent until such time as she is able to earn her own living. After reviewing the case His Honour concluded that, although Mrs. Bolton had given way to temptation, she still remained the mother of the children, and bore towards them a mother's love. She was at the time of speaking living a reputable life, and it would be depriving the children of a priceless influence in their lives to cut them off from any intercourse with their mother. The Judge accordingly made an order that the respondent be entitled, on condition that she rigidly abstains from using any endeavour to influence the minds of the children against the petitioner or against any of his relatives, to have access to the children for two hours on every .Saturday afternoon during the school terms, and that she be entitled, on the same condition, to take them out and have them in her sole charge during such periods of access. The order will be in force until further order of the Court, and it will depend on 'circumstances whether the order is varied so as to give more or less liberal access. If the conduct of Mrs. Bolton warrants it, and it is found to be to the advantage of the children to spend part of their holidays with their mother,_ such an order may be made. Liberty will be reserved to both parties to apply to vary or rescind this order.

Dealing with the question of maintenance, His Honour said that Mrs. Bolton had sworn that she was in ill-health and unable to earn her, own living. The statement was not supported by medical evidence, but even if her health was satisfactory it was clear that she had no occupational training and was not at present fitted to earn her own living. She must, however, start and learn. The finding of the jury had been that she was not entirely to blame for what had occurred, part of the blame being attributed to petitioner’s carelessness nnd neglect. That being the case (and he was well able to afford it), in His Honour’s opinion, he ought to do something regarding respondent’s maintenance. His Honour accordingly made an order that petitioner pay respondent during their joint lives and so long as she remains unmarried, the weekly sum of £1 10s. Leave was granted petitioner to discharge or vary the order upon proof that respondent had become possessed of means, or that she was earning- sufficient to support herself.