Change or Venue for Divorce Cases Criticised

Manawatu Times, Volume 68, Issue 60, 12 March 1943, Page 3

Change or Venue for Divorce Cases Criticised

I’fer Press Association. : BLENHEIM, Mar. S. Hlieu a divorce case, in which the petitioner resides at Christchurch and the respondent at Wellington, came before Mr. Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court, he promptly demanded to hriow why the proceedings were brought on in Blenheim. ‘‘lt was done to avoid publicity, M replied petitioner's counsel. His Honour: “The law requires that divorce proceedings shall be taken in open court. It is wrong to use ttfc court for the purpose of avoiding publicity. I only ask you to intimate to J he solicitors who did it that it is a baglily impioper proceeding. ” n Th . e caß ? was adjourned for the production of further evidence. The parties were Alma Jane Marris, Christen ruch, and Eric Charles Augustus Marris, Wellington, journalist. In a subsequent case, in which Peter fr. e ° r .y Shipman, company director, Wellington, was granted a decree nisi, counsel explained that the case was brought on at Blenheim as the most convenient place in view of the fact that petitioner was constantly travel ling about the Dominion. His Honour: I still think Blenheim a strange place of convenience in view of the fact that his home is in Wellington. The passing through there was done for the purposes of reducing the publicity. Petitioner: “No, I have nothing to tear from publicity.»» His Honour; Very well.