NULLITY SUIT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22389, 8 April 1936, Page 17

NULLITY SUIT

PETITION WITHDRAWN WIFE CLAIMS ALIMONY COURT ALLOWS £3 WEEKLY Curious matrimonial and legal situations were disclosed in an application that came before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court yesterday. On behalf of Harry Gagen, of Cambridge, Mr. Munro applied for leave to withdraw a petition for nullity of marriage. The respondent, Gertrude Minnie Gagen, was represented by Mr. Lennard, who agreed to the withdrawal of the petition, subject to the payment of costs and alimony by petitioner.

During the proceedings it was disclosed that the petitioner was first married in 1889 in America to a woman from whom he was divorced in 1912 and who died in 1922. In 1918 he married the respondent, but now alleged that the marriage was a nullity. The petitioner was stated to be a man of means who travelled about a good deal between Australia and Canada.

Mr. Munro said that Gagen had brought proceedings for a decree of nullity some years ago in a case recorded in the New Zealand Law Reports of 1929, but Mr. Justice Smith held that he had no jurisdiction, as the wife was living in America.

Actions lor Maintenance Respondent brought an action for maintenance in Canada last year, continued counsel, and this was compromised by her receiving payment of 800 dollars and giving petitioner a deed of release from all further claims. She had subsequently sought maintenance from him in the Court at Cambridge, but the case was struck out because she could not produce proper evidence of marriage. Mr. Munro submitted that respondent had entered into a solemn binding deed, which at this stage she flouted, not to take proceedings for maintenance, and His Honor would be justified in refusing alimony. His Honor said the petitioner had married this woman in 1918, and she no doubt believed he was free to do so. In 1929 he claimed that he had not been free to marry her, and that he was then still united to his previous wife. A man who put a woman in that position ought to undertake serious obligations. His Honor's Decision Mr. Munro said that petitioner had got a decree of dissolution and acted in good faith. He had a clear right to ask the Court to give him leave to withdraw the petition. The only questions were costs and alimony and security for them. Mr. Lennard said that Gagen first married in 1889 and separated from his wife in 1908. He then induced the respondent to join him in Canada. He obtained a divorce in the State of Washington in 1912, but that petition was inaccurate. Both parties were now living in Cambridge. Gagen was a man of considerable wealth, holding overseas securities worth £13,000, and owning a house valued at £2OOO. Counsel suggested that £5 a week would be reasonable alimony.

His Honor said the petition for leave to withdraw would be granted upon condition that the petitioner paid the wife's costs and alimony at the rate of £3 a week from the date of filing of the petition for nullity to the date of the payment of costs.