EDEN DIVORCE CASE

Grey River Argus, 19 March 1941, Page 10

EDEN DIVORCE CASE

FULLER DETAILS Of the Judgment [Per Press Association] CHRISTCHURCH, March 18. On March 13, a Press Association message was sent from Christchuici concerning a Supreme Court action before Mr Justice Northcroft, in which Richard Nelson Eden sought a decree absolute for the dissolution of his marriage with Muriel Thelma Eden, and the custody of the child of the marriage. It has since been ascertained that important passages in His Honour’s judgment were omitted from the report, for which regret is expressed to the Court. In giving his judgment, His Honour said that the parties had made similar applications to the Court, and he was left in a state' of doubt as to the real facts and the real background. There seeSned to be a degree of truth in both cases. The life of the respondent had not been blameless, but the petitioner must accept some of the responsibility. He was in arrears for maintenance to the extent of £l2O, and if his wife had fallen, it was, at least paytly, because of the necessity of doing the best for herself and child. His Honour said that he had a grave suspicion that the petitioner had an ulterior motive. Eden had not been a good father. Now he wished to have the custody of the child. He could have volunteered for service, and, with a wife and child, would have received a separate allowance for them. He preferred to let other people fight fo r his welfare, and, in fact, avoided territorial training for home defence. He had an impression that the petitioner’s application for custody might have something to do with military service. His paramount consideration, Mr Justice Northcrjoft added, was for the little girl. She had been consistently in the care of he r mother. who seemed to have been dutiful in that respect. Her school-teach-er had stated that she was well cared for at home, and a Sunday School teacher had filed a similar affidavit. The mother did possess proper views as to the child’s welfare. The petitioner’s proposal was that the child should be taken to an aunt, wh 0 had never shown the slightest interest in the girl. He did not think that she could be a satisfactory foster parent for the child. She would become the virtual mother of the child. Yet she was not even at Court. He felt that it would be an act of injustice to the child to disturb the present arrangement. He, accordingly, granted a decree absolute, with an order that permanent custody and control of the child should be with the respondent. He fixed maintenance for the child at 15s weekly. When Mr C V. Quigley asked for access to the child, on behalf of the petitioner, His Honour declined the application, stating that he was not satisfied that the petitioner was genuine, and adding that the interest of petitioner in his child was belated. He did not think that, in future, the child should be disturbed.