DIVORCE SUIT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10480, 28 June 1897, Page 3

DIVORCE SUIT.

EVELYN MARY GARDNER V. CECIL GARDNER.

THE VALIDITY OF AMERICAN DECREES. At the Supreme Court on Saturday morning His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly heard a divorce case, in which the question was gone into of whether an American decree obtained by the husband, domiciled in the United States, dissolved bis marriage with his wife, who was living in New Zealand. The petitioner, Evelyn Mary Gardner, applied for a decree nisi for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, Cecil Gardner, on the ground of his haying contracted a second marriaee in America. Mr. Dnfaur appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Cooper for the respondent. The statement of facts agreed on by counsel set out that the petitioner was a British subject; that the respondent was a British subject, but was now, and was on the 10th day of October, 1891, a naturalised citizen of the United States of America ; that the parties were lawfully married in Auckland on 26th April, ISS2; that after their marriage they cohabited, and had issue; that on the 10th October, 1891, respondent commenced an action in the Supreme Court, City and County of San Francisco, United States of America, to obtain a decree dissolving the bond of matrimony then existing between himself and the petitioner; that the respondent was then and still is domiciled within America; that a decree was pronounced in the said Court purporting to dissolve the said marriage, on May 12, 1892; that on the 28th day of November, 1892, the respondent went through the ceremony of marriage with one Lilian Weaver at San Francisco, and had since cohabited with her as his wife, and has bad issue by the said Lilian Weaver; that at no time has the petitioner ever been within the territory of the U.S.A. Mr. Cooper put in a certified copy of the decree of the Superior Court, San Francisco, signed by the Court, and countersigned by the British Consul. His Honor said the only question was whether that decree was a valid decree in this colony. Mr. Cooper wished to state that the divorce in America was not granted on the grounds of misconduct. Mrs. Gardner was well-known here, and counsel would nob like that to be thought. His Honor remarked tbab he did nob know the facts in the present case, bub he understood in American Courts very slight grounds were sufficient. Mr. Cooper, in support of his contention that the decree was valid, quoted the cases of Harvey, otherwise Farney v. Farney, and Thompson v. Thompson, the former being reported in L.R. 6, Probate Division, page 35, and the latter in i Times Reports, page 242.

Mr. Dufaur said the petition was brought by Mrs. Gardner to test her status, and satisfy herself of ber position. His Honor, in giving judgment, said he must take the decree as a valid one, and if that were so, it dissolved the marriage, and since the date mentioned in it, the petitioner was nob Mrs. Gardner at all, therefore there was no need of the present application. The petition was dismissed on the ground of a former decree having already dissolved the marriage. Mo costs were allowed.

His Honor ordered the American decree to be tiled.