DIVORCE COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 14 September 1937, Page 6

DIVORCE COURT

AN OPPOSED APPLICATION. (Per Press Association—Copyrighf). AUCKLAND, September 13. The adjourned action in which tho Solicitor-General intervened to oppose' a decree nisi being made absolute was resumed' before Mr Justice Calian, in the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, Geoffrey Squire RadIcy, lTuij and produce merchant, ol Christchurch, obtained a decree nisi against his wife, Dorothy Whaley Rad- , ley, from Mr Justice Fair,'. on November 16 last, on the ground that a separation agreement entered into between the parties oil August 26, 1932, had been in full force and effect ever since. On behalf of the Crown, Mr AC 1L - Meredith intervened, allege,*, that tho decree nisi was obtained contrary to the natural justice of cause, owing to material facts being concealed from the Court. The Crown alleged on the evidence of diaries kept by the respondent that the parties had been together on 170 occasions after the separation, and that the separation had been definitely terminated in o»..ie 1934, when the wife complied with the husband’s request to return anq live with him. The examination or Mrs 'Radley which occupied several days early last June, was completed before the case was then adjourned. Rowa Radley, aged 11$ years, a daughter of .the parties, and Dr. Margaret Knight, who had attended Airs Radley, gave evidence to-day. The petitioner,. in evidence, said lie was married in July, 1912, at the age of 19, when Airs Radley was 27. , He said he sent his children, to Christchurch. in 1930 because.she had threatl ene,d, to kill them. He described, me 1 circumstances of hi s getting a new i home at Papatoetoe with a view to making a fresh start. His wife would not go to Papatoetoe, and they had been separated ever since. The hearing was adjourned . AUCKLAND, September 14.

Tu evidence this • morning petitioner said he .married respondent in July, 1912. He was then 19 and she 27. Mar-: ried life became unpleasant after three months. The wife had a had temper and persisted wanting to have her own wav. He found it imposible to live with her. Finally ho left her in 1927. He denied the allegations made concerning his conduct when he and his wife went to England for a holiday in J 930. He admitted lie had sent the children to Christchurch, hut he did so because the mother had threatened to kill them. Referring to occasions when lie, saw his wife in Christchurch during the period covered by the separation agreement, petitioner said this was the ’result of an arrangement made between them that lie take the children out in ],is ear ou Sundays. Petitioner said he •met her one day. at her request, when ■ respondent asked it a reconciliation ■ v ere not possible. Slio was in a very nervous condition } stating, she bad no friends in Christchurch or relations in New Zealand. He told her there . was no possibility of a reconciliation andshe said she would commit suicide. She often threatened to commit suicide. Petitioner admitted lie had taken his wife to the pictures but denied lie ever took her out driving by day or night alone or that certain happenings, which she alleged, had taken place.

HUSBAND’S CASE SUCCEEDS

D U NED IN, September 13

A double petition for 'divorce, based on identical, grounds—desertion—-was before the Supreme Court to-day, the parties seeking the dissolution of a marriage which, in the words of counsel for the petitioner, had ceased to exist in fact seven years ago. The purpose of the litigation Was to determine 'to whom the divorce should be granted. Petitioner’s counsel informed tho Court that while his client wa s anxious that she should be granted a divorce, she* would infinitely prefer the success of her husband’s petition to no divorce at all. She was anxious that her own petition, if unsuccessful, should not prejudice her husband’s case. Counsel explained that there was intense bitterness between the parties ; and that there could therefore he no suggestion whatever of collusion in any shape or form. The petition, which, was heard by AD Justice Kennedy, was brought by AVilhelmina Jane Elder Seymour against Roland Seymour, the grounds for relief being two separate allegations of desertion. Respondent’s answer was a denial of the desertion charges, and allegation of desertion by the petitioner. Air \A\ Al. Taylor appeared for the petitioner,. and Air.C. J. L. AYbite for the respondent. The application of the husband was-granted.