SECOND DIVORCE ACTION

Northern Advocate, 19 August 1933, Page 10

SECOND DIVORCE ACTION

WIFE GIVEN DECREE NISI

THE RICHARDSON CASE.

HIS HONOUR TROUBLED.

(Special to "Northern Advocate.") AUCKLAND, This Day.

£lp the Supreme Court yesterday, Mrs Mflfiia Mary Richardson was granted a dferee nisi by Mr Justice Smith, to be Wade absolute in three months, against Sfiimeth Eahiri George Eiehardson, on tlfefground of failing to comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights.

petitioner stated that she was mar

tjjjjjffa. on February 24, 1920, and after wards lived with her husband in various pi&ts of New Zealand. There were two children. On August 18, .1932, witness petitioned to the court for the restitution' of conjugal rights, she and her husband being parted. Her husband hiid not resided with her since, or obeyedrthe order of the court in any way. iiteith Otway, brother of the petitioner, gave corroborative evidence that sSjfCB August 18, 1932, respondent had nOfc returned to reside with his wife. iHis Honour said he was rather

troubled about the case. He had a* discretion hi. regard to the issuing of a.liecree and he found it difficult to ri'l himself of information he had gained .doting the proceedings in the past few days. As was indicate!! to the jury in the prior proceedings on Thursday, th«re might be collusion. c*'My client was prepared to return

oi£?March 18, 1932, and also when tho for restitution was filed," said Mr Singer. "She is prepared to repeal he* former evidenee that she was willirig to Return.'' Becalled, petitioner said that on March 18, 1932, when at Te Paki, slie was agreeable that she and her husband would reside together. "That is trw, and even when I wrote the letter which prefaced the proceedings for restitution I was prepared to go back on account of. my children.'' think the proper course would be for me to send all the papers to the Solicitor-General, and he can interfere if he thinks fit in the public interest;

fri this proceeding the only evidence justifies the issuing of a decree nisi, to bes moved absolute after three months,'' said his Honour, who granted petitioner the interim custody of the children. Tho question of costs was reserved.

Section 24 of the Act," his honour continued, "I will direct th\j registrar to forward to the SolicitorGeneral all papers and evidence in tha restitution proceedings, and in the pro coiedihgs Eichardson v. Eichardson and Jenkins, to enable trie Solocitor-GeneraJ to show cause why the decree nisi should not be made absolute if he so thinks."