USING CHILD AS SHIELD

Evening Star, Issue 23834, 14 March 1941, Page 10

USING CHILD AS SHIELD

JUDICIAL OPINION OF DIVORCE| PETITIONER WIFE GIVEN ITS CUSTODY [Per United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, March 13. “ You cannot expect me to have much sympathy for a man who is dodging service to his country iu these critical times,” said Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day, when Richard Nelson Eden sought a decree absolute for dissolution of his marriage to Muriel Thelma Eden and custody of the child of the marriage. Mr C. V. Quigley appeared for the petitioner, Eden,‘and Mr R. A. Young represented the respondent, who asked for maintenance and the custody of the child. Mr Quigley said the divorce action was founded on adultery. Since four years ago the wife had held a Magistrate’s Court order for the custody of the child. It had been arranged between counsel that the question of permanent custody should be left over until to-day. As the wife was the guilty party in the dissolution of the marriage, counsel contended that the petitioner was entitled to custody. Mr Justice Northcroft: How old is the petitioner? Mr Quigley; Thirty-one years. His Honour: He has no home of his own, and I am being asked to take the child away from its mother and hand u over to its aunt at Lyttelton?—Yes, His Honour: Why did the petitioner not, volunteer for active service?—He is waiting for his turn in the ballots. His Honour: Why did he not enlist voluntarily before the ballot?—He considered that he was still a married man. His Honour; When he was called in the Territorial ballot he appealed and used the child to escape sendee?—He was paying maintenance for the child. His Honour: He is not a married man. He is living apart from Lis wife, and he is not maintaining her. The question I have to decide is whether he intends to continue using the child to avoid military service. Mr Quigley: I had not taken that 'question into consideration. His Honour; That is quite in order. ■Mr Quigley. You are concerned only with putting your client’s case, hut I am bound to examine the case from that point of view. Cross-examined, the petitioner said he did not desire to evade serving his ■country. He had been told by the man power authorities that he should appeal against Territorial service on the grounds of status. His Honour: But you told the authorities you were a married man with a child. The Petitioner: Yes. His Honour; In'times like these 1 cannot help forming an adverse opinion of a man who does not take the first opportunity of serving his' country. Why did you not volunteer for service earlier? The Petitioner: I preferred to take my turn. His Honour: You have told me what sort of man you are. To Mr Young, witness said he did not know that he'owed £BB 13s 6d for the maintenance of his child. His Honour: Have you not bothered to find out? The Petitioner: I do not know because the money I paid in on behalf of my child was being given to my wife for her maintenance. His Honour directed that custody of the child be given to Mrs Eden, notwithstanding that she had been respondent in the divorce suit. He also made a maintenance order in favour of the child against Eden for 15s a week, and declined to allow Eden access to the child, stating that he did not consider the petitioner a fit and proper person to be allowed access.