DIVORCED WIFE’S APPLICATION

Evening Star, Issue 22202, 3 December 1935, Page 11

DIVORCED WIFE’S APPLICATION

PERMANENT MAINTENANCE SOUGHT ALLEGATIONS Or HUSBAND Application for permanent maintenance by a petitioner in a divorce case came before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court this morning, the -parties being Jane lie I Donald (petitioner) and David Donald (respondent). Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for the petitioner, and Mr D. A. Bell for. the respondent. Mr Stevenson said a decree nisi was o-rantd in November, 1934. The court had discretion in making an order tor the payment of a weekly sum,_ and the factors, to be taken into consideration were the means of the wife, the ability of the husband to pay, and the conduct of the parties. Evidence would be led to show the inability of the wife to support herself, and it would be submitted that the income of the husband was sufficient to make substantial payment to the wife. In respect to the conduct of the parties, there was'an allegation with regard to petitioner s association with a man named King. It would be shown that the relationship was that of friends only, and that the petitioner’s mother resided with her from the date of the association, no objection to which had been taken till up to the date of the present applicati°n. . , Petitioner stated in evidence that the cause of the separation was her husband’s drunkenness. The man mentioned was living in the house witli her mother and herself, and paid as a boarder.', Petitioner was examined at length by Mr Bell in regard to the number of times she bad met King. She said that King was often invited by Her husband and herself to come to the house. His Honour: Is this man a married man? Witness: Yes. Did you also invite his wife to come to the house ?—No. Petitioner further stated that she knew King left his wife a day or two before 'she separated from her husband. It was not a fact that she was seen so often with King that it had become a subject of comment. It had never been stated to her since the separation that her husband objected to King living in the house. Evidence was given by the petitioner’s mother, who said she felt no concern in sometimes leaving petitioner and King in the house. Arthur Ernest King, hairdresser, said he had known Mr and Mrs Donald for about 10 years. He was frequently invited by Donald to visit the house. He mot Mrs Donald, and did not pay her any particular attention. He had not met her at her home when her husband was away. Donald had not taxed him with being over-friendly with his wife. There had been a rumour that he had been going about with Mrs Donald, but, after the matter was discussed, Donald and he were on friendly terms. Witness was separated from his wife six years ago. In answer to Mr Bell, witness said he had been surprised when he met Mrs Donald during a holiday at Tiniaru. They only happened to visit the town at the same time. He did not think there was any harm in his staying at Mrs Donald’s home as a boarder.

Amy Ewing said she had been a close friend of Mrs Donald for 20 years. She had never seen anything in the relations between Mrs Donald and King to arouse her suspicions. 'Phis closed the case for the petitioner.

David Donald, postal official. 1 deposed respecting the association of his wifj-

with King. That was, he said, the first cause of the separation. In .-reply to Mr Stevenson, witness said it was a condition of the separation that his wife should not associate with King. He had not, however, ceased to pay maintenance after the separation. Counsel addressed the court, and tlie hearing was adjourned till the afternoon.