DECREE RESCINDED.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 108, 7 April 1936, Page 4

DECREE RESCINDED.

ACTION IN DIVORCE,. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, April 6. The action of the Solicitor-General i n intervening in. divorce proceedings led to a decree nisi being rescinded by Mr Justice Fair in -the Supreme Court to-day The parties to the divorce proceedings, whicli were heard on November 15, 1934, were Rose DonaldsonEdward, petitioner (M r ' Matthews), and James Donaldson-Edw.ard, companv manager,- respondent. 1 ne .Y ” ei married in August, 1922,; and had t'vo children. A decree nisi; was granted on the ground of ail agreement to separate having been in force fro June, 1930. , ' , , . The Solicitor-General submitted that the parties were living together until September 10, 1930, and that in the previous year petitioner had committed adultery. Respondent had filed a petition alleging this. It was not answered and the petition was not brought. The Solicitor-General therefore asked flhat the decree he rescinded and the petition dismissed. , Petitioner replied denying that tne decree had been obtained contrary to justice or that any material facts had been wilfully suppressed. She admitted that the agreement might not have been made until September, 1930. ; “I should have allowed the decree nisi to stand if such a course were possihle on principle.” said His Honour, “but Ido not think it is. There had now been brought before the Court facts under which the separation agreement was entered into, and these showed that the husband had charged the wife with infidelity and expressed his definite intention of obtaining divorce proceedings. No doubt the parties agreed to live apart after that, but he did not think that was an agreement of separation within the meaning of the Act. The type of agreement which, resulted from a previous matrimonial offence did not fall within the section. The petition should not have succeeded- and the decree nisi should now be rescinded on the ground that the decree should be refused when it appeared that petitioner was relying on her own wrongful act as a basis for proceedings. The order asked for by the SolicitorGenera I must he iicide. His Honour concluded, rescinding the decree nisi and dismissing the petition.