A DECREE NISI.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 109, 4 November 1910, Page 8

A DECREE NISI.

MOTION TO RESCIND IT SUCCESSFUL. A UNIQUE CASE. "This, I believe, is the first case in New Zealand in which the AttorneyGeneral or the Solicitor-General haa intervened in a divorce suit," said His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper to-day in beginning his judgment on a motion by the Solicitor-General to discharge the decree nisi granted on tho 19th March, 1910, in the divorce proceedings William Jobson, petitioner, v. Edith Lilian Jobson, respondent, and James Athol Bailie, co-respondent, and to dismiss the petition to have the decree made absolute. The grounds were that petitioner had condoned respondent's adultery since the granting 'of the decree, and that the material facts had not been brought to the court's knowledge at that time. In substance the facts adduced showed that since the decree nisi was obtained the parties had come together at Wanganui and Wellington. Both parties desired the decree made absolute. It was* stated by respondent's counsel that petitioner had a dominating influence over his wife, and this was not denied by the petitioner. In later proceedings respondent filed a notice of motion to have the decree made absolute, and notice of her application was sent to the Solicitor-General, and an order was made granting him leave to intervene. In reply to a contention by respondent's counsel, His Honour held that the intervention of the Solicitor-General was in time; he had- the right to intervene at any time before the decree was made absolute. In reply to a second legal contention as to "material facts," it was held that the right of the Solicitor-General to intervene had not gone because some of the facts were brought to the knowledge of the court before the intervention. The third question of law raised was as to whether the facts admitted were such as to give jurisdiction to the court to discharge the decree nisi, and, if so, should the" court exercise that jurisdiction. After a comprehensive citation of authorities his Honour said it was quite clear that the court, having become seized of the fact that since the decree nisi the parties to the suit had been cohabiting together, and the court having already upon that ground dismissed the petitioner's motion to make, the decree absolute, cannot possibly make the decree absolute upon • the respondent's motion. This motion has, technically, not yet been moved, but all the circumstances are before the court. Those circumstances establish condonation by the petitioner, and the matrimonial offence on which the decree nisi has been granted is extinguished, and upon a motion to rescind that decree the court ,is, in my opinion, bound to act. Th» pith and marrow of the suit has gone, and with it must go the decree nisi. The effect of the. condonation is, as cited by Sir Francis Jeune, that the petition must be dismissed. The decree nisi was rescinded and the petition dismissed. The order made in reference to the respondent's costs would stand. The Solicitor-General did not ask for costs against petitioner. The court ordered petitioner to pay an additional £10 10s towards the general costs of respondent., The Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond) appeared in person, and Mr. T. Young for respondent. Petitioner was neither present nor represented.