SEQUEL TO DIVORCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 11 August 1928, Page 6

SEQUEL TO DIVORCE.

AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES CONTESTED. MAGISTRATES HOLDS IT TO BE BINDING. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 9. The Magistrate, Mr Page to-day held that a legally binding agreement had been entered into by a eo-respond-eat in a divorce action to pay the petitioner 0 on condition that certain evidence should not be offered. Samuel ilosking Lake, an engineer at Porirua was the plaintiff and 'Henry H. Edwards of the Porirua Mental Hospital staff was the defendant, i in June Lake petitioned for a, divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery, drunkenness and neglect o! domestic duties. Two persons were oined as co-respondents, one being the defendant. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner, respondent and the two co-respondents whereby it was agreed, inter alia, first that the petitioner would offer no evidence in support of the charges of adultery, and second, that respondent would withdraw her defence to the charges of drunkenness and neglect of domestic duties, and that the husband’s petition on those charges would go undefended, and as part of the agreement, the co-respondents each undertook to pay a sum of money, defendant’s amount being £SO and the other The claim was resisted on the ground that it was contrary to public policy. M,- Pace held that the amounts were in the nature of costs and differentiated between thus ease and one of stopping a petition. .