Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

BARON AND BARONESS.

INTERESTING POINT IX MATRI-

MONIAL LITIOATON.

In* the Court of Appeal, a few days ago, de Pallandt Eerde v. de Pallandt Eerde was an appeal by defendant. Baron de Pallandt Erde, from an order made by Mr. Justice Ridley, at chambers, refusing to allow him to administer certain interrogatories to his wife, the Baroness de Pallandt Eerde, by whom the action had been commenced. The proposed questions were of three classes, and counsel in the case had agreed that they should stand or fall together, the point being whether in an action, which was not brought for the purposes of obtaining a divorce, interrogatories of a eliminating character could be administered. The baroness claimed from the baron £2000, under a deed of separation, executed by them at Antwerp, dated November 29, 1899. The deed was expressly made in consideration of the baron paying to his wife £8000 when the deed was signed. As a matter of fact, only £6000 was then paid to the lady, and she. now sought to recover the balance. To the claim the baron pleaded, inter alia, that the agreement was not made in good faith, as plaintiff had concealed from him that she had not been leading, as he now alleged, a correct life prior to the signing of the separation deed. Upon this defence being filled, the wife administered interogatories. asking when and where, and the names of the person or persons with whom the alleged misconduct on her part had been committed. The husband replied that he had no personal knowledge himself, but that the defence was based on information, and was said to have taken place at Paris, Cairo, Rome, New York, and Chicago, and he mentioned the name of a certain gentleman as the person with whom the lady was alleged to have been living at hotels in these towns. The husband, in his turn, applied for leave to interrogate his wife as to whether she admitted or denied that the places and the dates his informant had supplied him with were correct, and it was because Mr. Justice Ridley had made an order refusing leave to administer these questions that the present appeal was brought. Mr. Clayton appeared in support of the baron's appeal, and argued that the restriction placed on eliminating interrogatories by a husband to a wife only applied when the issue of the suit was a divorce. That was not. the case here, the simple question being whether a contract was binding on him or not to ['.ay a certain sum. The Court, dismissed the appeal.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19010511.2.82.22

Bibliographic details

BARON AND BARONESS., New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11650, 11 May 1901, Supplement

Word Count
432

BARON AND BARONESS. New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11650, 11 May 1901, Supplement

Working