DIVORCE COURT

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 132, 5 June 1923, Page 8

DIVORCE COURT

PETITION UNDER SEPARATION DEED. A petition for divorce, founded on a deed of separation stated to have been in existence for three years, came before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at the Supreme Court to-day. The petitioner was Fay Deborah Symons, now resident in Sydney, and the respondent was Alfred) Symons, of Wellington. It was pleaded on behalf of-'the _ respondent' that the terms and conditions of the agreement, or some of them, had been broken by the petitioner, and, further, it was alleged that the separation was due. to the wrongful acts and conduct of the petitioner. Mr. H." F. O'Leary appear for the petitioner, and Mr. P. W. Jackson for the respondent. In the box, the petitioner said that she married the respondent in 1913. After the marriage the parties lived in Auckland, and on 27th August, 1919, they entered into an agreement at Wellington to separate. Prior to'the agreement she had taken proceedings against her husband for separation on the ground of persistent cruelty. These proceedings were taken as a result of an incident which occurred while they were living in Abel Smith street. Her little boy had asked her for a walking stick, aud on her telling him to say "please," the respondent took the. stick, and, after Wing a certain expression, thrashed her until she collapsed. Later, a, deed of separation was signed. After the agreement the respondent repeatedly molested her. On' occasions he jumped off tha tramcar on which he was: working and accosted her in the street and molested her. She decided to go to Sydney, and the respondent agreed that that would be the better course, but when, approached for the consent that was then necessary before a wife could leave New Zealand he refused to- give it. Again, she pleaded with him, and again he gave his consent, saying that he\ would follow later. On the day of her departure., however, he withdrew his consent, but she went on to Auckland, eventually going to Sydney. Petitioner was examined by Mr. Jackson regarding the terms of her agreement with the respondent. .She admitted that she knew that one of the terms was that if one of.the parties left New Zealand the other was to have absolute custody of the fchild. . . (Proceeding. I