JUDICIALLY SEPARATED

Gisborne Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 4905, 26 June 1918, Page 6

JUDICIALLY SEPARATED

THE SHERIDAN CASE. RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO A DECREE. YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. When the Supreme Court opened yesterday morning proceedings in the case Sheridan v. an application for a judicial separation, which promised to be of considerable length, came to an abrupt conclusion as far as the hearing before the .jury was concerned, the respondent consenting to a decree. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared for the petitioner, Zoe Maud Sheridan, and Mr. F. W. Nolan, with him Mr. J. Blair, for the respondent. Mr Blair said His Honor had made a suggestion which respondent would act upon. They proposed, if possible, not to continue any further, but at this stage to consent to a Decree. In doing so, however, they wished to state that such consent involved no admissions on their part in regaiy] to the charges of misconduct. They had not yet put before His Honor and the jury the answer they had; onl v the respondent’s denial. It. was unwillingly that respondent agreed to this step,- because lie wished the charges, which had been preferred against him, to be investigated by the jury. The other questions which would arise, dealing with custody of the children aipj, maintenance, would be placed before His Honor.

Mr Burnard said that as respondent had consented to a Decree he had nothing to say. He did not acquiesce in what Mr Blair had said in regard to the charges of misconduct, and he did not wish it to be understood that petitioner was withdrawing any portion of the claims set up. His Honor said the jury might have gathered from wliat Mr Blahhad said that a suggestion had been made to the parties. He might say that this action was not for divorce, hut was an action for judicial separation, and after listening to the evidence on the previous day it appeared to him that whatever side succeeded —whether Mrs Sheridan or Mr Sheridan —the parties could hardly he expected to ever live together in peace and happiness, and it appeared to him that the question was mainly one of the maintenance, of the wife and the custody of the children. He had suggested a compromise on that basis with the result the jury had seen. Thev would, he thought, agree that it was the best way out, as they must all have been pained at the evidence which had come before them on the previous day. After thanking the jury for their attendance His Honor said thev would be discharged. Mr Burnard: I .would suggest. Your Honor, that before the jury is discharged a formal verdict should be returned. His Honor said he assumed that by virtue of the consent he could pronounce a verdict.* The position v,as that the respondent had consented to a Decree without prejudice to any question of maintenance qi' control of the children. Mr Burnard then formally ask eel for judgment pursuant to consent, , and applied for costs on the higher His Honor: I don’t know whether its a Decree Nisi in these cases.; its so rarely we have these judicial separation cases. ,-1 1 J. Mr Blair: Its a Decree Absolute, but I don’t think it is called a Decree Absolute. , , ... His Honor granted the Decree with costs on the higher scale (£45) and disbursements to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. lhe other questions as to custody or the children and maintenance would be taken in Chambers. In reply to a question of Mr Buinard His Honor said he would allow costs' separately on the new petition. The hearing in Chambers continued all day and when the Court ro.se the question of alimony remained to be settled between the parties.