DIVORCE COSTS

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 December 1926, Page 3

DIVORCE COSTS

RELIEF FOR HUSBAND. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, November 29. A wife who abandons a defence to a divorce action is not entitled to costs against her husband, when a decree nisi is granted, if in the opinion of the Judge her case is without merit. This point was made clear by Mr Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court in the divorce petition of John Harold Lynch, bus driver, of Auckland (Mr. Northcroft), against Dulcie Joyce Lynch, Herbert Kane, bus driver, of Birkenhead, being cited as co-respond-ent. i Earlier in the session respondent obtained an adjournment of the hearing on the ground of shortness of notice, and an intimation was also made on her behalf that the case would be defended, and that a jury would be required. When the case was called to-day, Mr. Dickson, for respondent and co-re-spondent, intimated that the defence had been withdrawn, and that the petition could go ahead as an undefended case. His client had denied the allegation of adultery, and he submitted that she was entitled to her cost up to the time of ttfe withdrawal of the defence. Mr. Northcroft submitted that this was a case in which the husband should not be ordered to pay the wife’s costs. He contended that respondent had no defence, and never could have had a defence, to the action. Before making.an order against the husband, the Court should have some evidence before it that there was a reasonable defence, and also reasonable grounds for the withdrawal. ’ The case was then heard, and a decree nisi to be made absolute after the expiration of three months was granted. His Honor said he proposed to exercise the discretion vested in Judges by the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, and refuse to make an order for costs against the husband. It was laid down that the wife’s case must have some special and meritorious aspects before she could obtain costs against her petitioning husband, and, in his opinion, the present case was one destitute of merit.