MAORI MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6020, 28 February 1921, Page 3

MAORI MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION.

GIFT OF £SO TO RESPONDENT.

UNUSUAL CASE IN WELLINGTON. Petitions in divorce are not usual among members of the Maori race, whose marriage customs are in their nature elastic enough to accommodate any marital differences, and provide a direct way out of the trouble There was, therefore (says the Wellington 'Post) a good deal of interest in the proceedings taken before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at Wellington on bnday afternoon by Niniwa Heremaia Hohepa against Te Oti Holiepa for dissolution of marriage. _ Mr 0. Beere appeared for the petitioner. an elderly Native lady, with all the placid dignity of her race, who gave her evidence through an interpreter, Mr H. M. Stow ell. She said she had married Te Oti on January 8, 1918, and resided in Wellington after the marriage, of which there were no children. In November last she went down to Kaiapoi with her husband, and stayed at a house kept by Mrs Peopi. 1 here she saw improper conduct on Aier husband J s part with one Wikitoria. She was very angry with her husband, and she pulled Wikitoria s hair out. She and her husband put his paramour out of the house, but ho went, too, and she had not seem lnm since that day. She came back to Wellington, leaving her husbaaid with the girl, and gave instructions to her lawyer to institute proceedings. Thon her husband had come up to Wellington the dav before the proceedings. She met him in the street outside the Court and asked him if he was going to defend the proceedings. There was no reconciliation, but the witness agreed to give her husband £SO, because she had always kept him, and he was now entirely without means. He would not agree to come back to live with her, so she said, “Come along with me to the lawyer.” She gave him the £SO that he might agree to have the marriage annulled. He said he would not set up any defence, but simply admit misconduct with Wikitoria

At this stage the interpreter, said the respondent was in court, and asked the Judge if he desired his appearance. On his Honour's reply in the affirmative, Mr Stowell called him. The respondent stepped up, a well-dressed Maori vouth with a ■share of- good looks. He said he had no objection to the proceedings. Ho admitted lie had done wrong. This concluded the case. His Honour said : If these were Europeans I should take a different view of the matter. But I have to take into account the Native customs. Here is an old woman married to a man young enough to be her son, almost her grandson. He admits misconduct. She lias means, she has money, and she gives him £SO to have done with him. It is not a case at all of money given to procure a false statement. This mail congratulates liimslf when ;tlie application for divorce is made, and comes up and applies for money, knowing she would give it him. There is mo collusion in the English sense of the term. I have therefore to make an order for a decree nisi, to he made absolute in three months. There was no application for costs.