PETITION REFUSED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20259, 29 May 1940, Page 11

PETITION REFUSED

DIVORCE ACTION UNUSUAL FEATURES NO AGREEMENT PROVED A case which was said by counsel to have unusual features was heard by Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court in Gisborne to-day, when Norman George Robb (Mr. D. E. Chrisp), sought a decree nisi from Mary Elizabeth Robb (Mr. M. ItMaude). The petition was refused. Mr. Chrisp said that the point at issue appeared to be whether or not there was an agreement to separate. An unusual feature of the case was that from the time of the marriage the wife refused intercourse with the petitioner. Both were young on their marriage, the petitioner being 20 years old and the respondent 22. For the first two weeks of their married life they slept in separate rooms After eight or nine years the petitioner took some girls to dances and pic-, turns at Ruatoria, though there was nothing improper in it. Thai, however. made respondent fear that the petitioner’s affections were being transferred elsewhere. The wife’s attitude changed; a child was stillborn.

Afterwards, the petitioner found he was no longer fond of his.wife, who became somewhat hysterical, threatening to commit suicide. They agreed to have a separation, although the wife did not want it. It was agreed that the wife should go to Motu for =he did not desire the separation to become public. Certain letters, counsel submitted, bore out his contentions. They had not lived together since.

Evidence of Petitioner and Respondent The petitioner, in evidence, said he was married to {lie respondent in Gisborne in March, 1925.

The respondent gave evidence that the petitioner told her after her confinement that he was in love with another woman, and that as he could not give her up he would have to leave the respondent. The respondent begged him not to leave her. but he said he would have to go. She did not want a separation ana would not agree to it. Had the petitioner been agreeable to her returning to him she would have done so.

His Honour said that it look two to make an agreement, and the respondent, according to the evidence, had always been against a separation. His Honour added that he would require a much stronger case in the circumstances if the petition was to succeed. Accordingly the petition was dismissed.