DOUBLE PETITION FOR DIVORCE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 299, 14 September 1937, Page 13

DOUBLE PETITION FOR DIVORCE

Husband and Wife Proceed on Identical Grounds

DECREE NISI GRANTED FORMER Dominion Special Service. Dunedin, September 13. An unusual case of a double petition for divorce based on identical grounds —desertion —was before the Supreme Court to-day, the parties seeking dissolution of a marriage which, in the words of counsel for petitioner, had ceased to exist in fact seven years ago.

The purpose of the litigation was to determine to whom the divorce should be granted, and in this connection petitioner’s counsel informed the court that, while his client was anxious that she should be granted a divorce, she would infinitely prefer the success of her husband’s petition to no divorce at all. She was anxious that her own petition, if unsuccessful, should not prejudice her husband’s case. Counsel explained ■ that there was intense bitterness between the parties, and that there could therefore be no suggestion whatever of collusion in any shape or form.

The petition, which was heard by Mr.' Justice Kennedy, was brought by Wilhelmeina Jane Elder Seymour against Roland Seymour, the grounds for relief being two separate allegations of desertion. Respondent’s answer was a denial of the desertion charges and an allegation of desertion by petitioner. Mr. W. M. Taylor appeared for petitioner and Mr. C. J. L. White for respondent.

Mr. Taylor said that the evidence would show that the wife actually left the family in 1930 and had not since returned, the result being constructive desertion. Respondent had filed an answer denying all petitioner’s grounds for relief and praying for divorce himself on the grounds of his wife’s desertion. Respondent, counsel said, went with the New Zealand Forces and married petitioner in Scotland in 1919. The parties came out to New Zealand, and there were three children of the marriage. In February, 1930, petitioner left respondent, and the parties had lived apart ever since. In May, 1930, the wife preceded against her husband for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders,' but the magistrate refused all but the maintenance application, fixing the amount at 30/- a week. Frequent litigation be-, tween the parties bad followed, and a great deal of bitterness had been engendered between husband and wife. The parties had been living apart for seven years and both were desirous of getting a divorce, so that the only dispute between them was who should get the divorce. Counsel assured the court that no relevant evidence or information would be withheld. Petitioner, however, had asked him to emphasise that, though she was anxious that a divorce should be granted to her, she would infinitely prefer the success of her husband’s petition to the granting of no divorce at all. The position was that both parties were anxious to secure dissolution of a marriage which had ceased'to exist in fact seven years ago. All that was required was severance of the legal tie, and counsel quoted authorities in support of his submission that such action should be taken by the court.

After hearing lengthy evidence, his Honour rejected the prayer of the wife’s petition, and the court proceeded to a hearing of respondent’s answer, which included a prayer for the granting of a divorce to him. The court having heard the evidence tendered in respondent’s behalf, a decree nisi was granted him, to be moved absolute at the end of three months. As petitioner’s case failed no costs were allowed.