SEPARATION ORDER REFUSED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 28 August 1929, Page 10

SEPARATION ORDER REFUSED.

RESERVED JUDGMENT IN STRATFORD CASE.

Reserved judgment was given .by Mr J 11. Salmon, S.M., at the Hawera Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon in a case heard a fortnight ago, wherein Ellen Godkin sought a separation from her husband, William Godkin, of New Plymouth, farmer, and formerly living 30 miles inland from Stratford, together with maintenance and custody of the tnvo children of the marriage. After traversing the facts brought out at the hearing, his Worship said that the marriage experiment had been a quixotic one and doomed to failure, anti would have required people of unusual breadth of character .to have made it a success. He was satisfied that Mrs Godkin had not committed adultery, but her behaviour had been so foolish that the husband, having in mind her previous life, might '‘veil be excused for believing that she had. 'Godkin had not really been guilty of failure to maintain, and his wife admitted that he had been kind throughout. Even after refusing to live with her any longer he had made some provision for her or promise to do so. 'On the evidence, she was not entitled to a separation, but it was clear that with their not being able to live together again, she must be provided for. His Worship, therefore, proposed to make a maintenance order in her favour and to refuse a separation order. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he thought that a fair sum to allow her would be 35s a week.

The great difficulty in the case, the magistrate proceeded, was the question of the custody of the children. He nvas not satisfied that the mother was entitled to custody as against the claims of the father, and he, therefore, refused

her a guardianship order. 'The father certainly did not appear to be a most suitable [person to have custody, but in these proceedings he was faced with the problem of who was the better person, and between the two ho thought the father was entitled to retain custody. If in the future any circumstances arose that showed that he was not, a lit person to have continued custody, then application could be made under the Act of Costa amounting' to ,C2 2s (were allowed i\l rs C!ml kin. At tli(> hearing Mr I\ O’Dea appeared for petitioner and Mr A. K. North for defendant.