INCREASED ALIMONY SOUGHT

Evening Star, Issue 20591, 17 September 1930, Page 12

INCREASED ALIMONY SOUGHT

WIFE’S APPLICATION TO COURT Daisy Broad petitioned the Supreme Court yesterday for an increase of the alimony of £2 10s a week paid to her by her husband, Wilfred Lawson Broad, from whom she was divorced, following an agreement for separation. Mr W. G. Hay . appeared for the respondent, Wilfred Lawson Broad, and Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., with Mr G. M. Lloyd, for the petitioner, Daisy Broad. Mr Hanlon referred to the financial position of Wilfred Lawson Broad, and Mr Hay also dealt with the same point. Mr Hanlon called Dr K. Ross, who said ho thought the child of the marriage should receive as good medical treatment in Dunedin as in England. Mr Hay said that Daisy Broad was thirty-two years of age. She was a professional singer, and was in good health, His client had again married, and had a, child by his second wife. Ho was also keeping a delicate child by his first wife. He proposed to go to England to get the best medical advice for his child.

The respondent stated in evidence that the cause of his marital troubles was that hjs wife failed to make a homo for him. Ho had made arrangements to go Home before the present proceedings had been commenced. He had decided to give up his employment in Dunedin, in preference to taking twelve months’ leave. He thought he would be able to get employment in England. In answer to Mr Hanlon: Witness denied that ho was addicted to drink before the separation had taken place betwecnhimself and his wife. His wife drove him to drink. Ho had been a married man without a home and with a delicate child to look after. Ho did not give the, petitioner .money to go to Italy. At the time of the separation between himself and his wife he allowed her £2 17s 6d per week. Ho had never refused his wife access to their child. He had sent his wife about £4O while she bad been in Italy. He was not sure how long it was after the decree of divorce had been granted to him before he had married again, lie did not think it was as short as six months. His income was at the least £l2 10s per week. By next February, the amount would be decreased by £8 per week, as'ho would then be away from his present employment. His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy, in answer to Mr Hay, said he personally had no desire for the petitioner to go into tlvu witness box.

Mr Hay said he wanted, to ask the petitioner some questions. His Honour said Mrs Broad could be called. Daisy Broad, in evidence, said she was in Italy studying voice production for two years and a-lialf. She bad earned no money by singing. "When she sang she sang for charity. She had travelled with a company conducted by Mr Winsloe, but it bad not proved a success. Bbe bad always been living with her father on the Peninsula since she bad been in Dunedin. Mr Hay; Have you done any work lately? Witness: Why should I? To drive one on to the legitimate stage at the present time would bo to drive one to, suicide. To Mr Hanlon: She was never away trom her homo while she was married. It was her husband's drunken habits that caused five trouble in their home. At that time she bad only sung at local concerts. Witness did not defend tljo divorce suit. Her husband had said ho would provide her with alimony. She had had a little money of her own and her husband bad also assisted her when she had loft for Italy, it was true that her husband had sent her £4O while she was in Italy. Her father bad also assisted her while she was in Italy. Her husband had given her £IOO with which to go to Italy. Under the separation agreement with her husband it was arranged that if she wont away from New Zealand the maintenance should stop His Honour: In your marriage certificate you are described as a music teacher. Is that correct? Witness said she had earned no money by singing. She wanted to become a music teacher so that she could earn money. His Honour said that according to the marriage certificate the petitioner

was twenty-two when she was married in 1915. His Honour said he would reserve liis decision. Ho must take it that according to Mr Justice M'Gregor the petitioner was entitled to alimony, and no had only to decide whether there had been any change in the circumstances since that order had been made..