Divorce Does Not Free Deserting Husbands

Northern Advocate, 10 May 1939, Page 11

Divorce Does Not Free Deserting Husbands

[Special to “Northern Advocate”l AUCKLAND, This Day. ' In granting a decree nisi in an undefended petition brought by a wife for divorce in the Supreme Court today, Mr Justice Callan requested that publicity be given to the fact that the divorce which petitioner was in the process of obtaining would probably be no good outside Now Zealand, and any assumptions by her husband, believed to be living outside New Zealand, that lie was divorced by this action would be wrong.

The petitioner, Ida Haw. applied for a divorce from John Thomas Haw on the grounds of desertion. They were married at York, England, in 1918. while her husband was training for a commission in the army.

They had known each other since childhood. After her husband’s discharge from the army they lived with her mother at York. They had disputes, and separated, but were reconciled later. Pier husband insisted on going alone for a holiday to Scarborough, and on his return he made an admission about a woman, which she condoned.

They agreed to go to New Zealand in response to an invitation from her brother. She went first, and he was to fellow, but on arrival at her destination she received a letter stating he was not coming. She had not since seen him or been able to communicate with him.

In granting a decree, to be made absolute in three months, His Honour made the remarks already quoted, and said that should her husband hear of these proceedings and assume that he was divorced he would probably be wrong, and consequently be committing bigamy if he married again. A husband who deserted his wife did not deserve much consideration from the court, but Plis Honour felt that publicity should be given to this aspect.