SEQUEL TO DIVORCE ACTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 203, 10 August 1928, Page 8

SEQUEL TO DIVORCE ACTION

AGREEMENT TO PAY PETITIONER. MAGISTRATE’S DECISION. Wellington, Aug. 9. The Magistrate, Mr. E. Page, today held legally binding an agreement entered into by a co-respon-dent in a divorce action to pay the petitioner £5O on condition that certain evidence was not offered. Samuel Hosking Lake, engineer, Porirua, was the plaintiff and Henry Hedwirds, of the Porirua mental hospital staff, the defendant. In June Lake petitioned for a divorce from his wife on the grounds of adultery drunkenness and neglect of her domestic duties. Two persons were joined as co-respondents, one being the defendant. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner, the respondent and the two co-respondents whereby it was agreed, inter alia, first, that the petitioner would offer no evidence in support of the charge 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. As part of the agreement the co-respondents each undertook to pay a sum of money to the defendants, one amount being £5O and the other £75. The claim was resisted on the ground that it was contrary to public policy. Mr. Page held that the amounts were in the nature of costs and differentiated between this case and one of stopping a petition.