PETITION FOR ALIMONY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18207, 28 September 1922, Page 5

PETITION FOR ALIMONY.

CHEQUE FOR £2/10 PAFO, PRESENTATION TOO LATE. I j JUDGMENT FOR EESPONDENT I Some unusual features were present in j the petition for alimony by Coral Emily j Ada Hynes (Mr. Prendergast) against ; Charles Albert Hynes (Mr. Ostler), which ! was heard in the Divorce Court at Auck- | land on August 21, before Mr. Justice I Stringar, who delivered judgment on the ! case at Hamilton yesterday. The facts were that the petitioner obI tained a decree nisi on April 7, 1921, on j the ground of desertion. Previously the i respondent had paid to his solicitor?, j Hammond and Cracknell, the sum of £280, j being £250 agreed upon in lieu of aiii many, and £30 costs. On April 6. 1921, j the hitter paid a cheque for £230 to j a firm of solicitors acting for peti- | tioner, to be cashed npon the granting I of a decree ni'ii. which was granted on j the next day. At thai time and on various dates thereafter, there were ample funds in Hammond and Cracknell's fcrusu account to meet the cheque, but. at their request petitioners solicitors held the cheque over, and it was not presented for payment until August 13, when it was returned marked "payment stopped." In November, 1921, Mrs. Hynes filed a petition for permanent alimony or maintenance. Hia Honor said there appeared to be no doubt that, had any reasonable diligence been shown by the petitioner or her agents in. presenting the cheque, it would have been paid. The question was whether in the circumstances the petitioner could maintain her petition for permanent maintenance. It was held, however, that there j was a good and valid agreement for the ] payment of maintenance, and that the j petitioner should accept £250, The fur- ! ther question arose whether it must be ! taken that the agreed sum had been paid, ' which question His Honor, after quoting authorities, answered affirmatively. It was unfortunate, said His Honor. that the petitioner should lose the snm for which she had commuted her claim for permanent maintenance, but she might have a remedy against her solicitors if the delay in presenting the cheque was attributable to them. But it would be still more unfortunate if the respondent were still liable to provide maintenance for the petitioner after he had made the agreed provision, which was lost by the neglect of the petitioner or hex agent*. The petition was dismissed without costs.