TWO SEEK DIVORCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22429, 27 May 1936, Page 17

TWO SEEK DIVORCE

HUSBAND ANT) WIFE

COMPLEX PROCEDURE THE GROUNDS IDENTICAL COMMENTS BY HIS HONOR A very unusual form of procedure was employed in the Supreme Court yesterday when Mr, Justice Callan had before him two divorce petitions, one by a husband against his wife, and the other by this wife against her husband The husband's petition, which was undefended, was lodged earlier than the wife's, and the husband defended the wife's petition. Kacli petition was on the identical ground of separation. The husband was Paul Rmilo Calnme, importer (Mr. Goodall), and he sought divorce from Nora Kathleen Gala mo (Mr. Grant). After listening to argument regarding order of procedure, His Honor directed Mr. Goodall to call his evidence, remarking, "We will grope our way gradually as the case proceeds." The petitioner Calaine said he was married to the respondent in Auckland on December 22, 1922. There were two children, who were now in his wife's possession in pursuance of the agreement made between them on February 2, 1933. This was a separation agreement, and they had continued to live apart ever since. The facts were corroborated by William McCully, who said he knew the parties well. His Honor said a case had been made which, were it not for the existence of the other petition, would warrant him in making a decree nisi. Previous Proceedings Nora Kathleen Calanie, called by Mr. Grant, gave evidence of her marriage, the birth of the two children, and the deed of separation. Mr. Grant said the wife wanted a decree in her favour because her husband in 1934 instituted divorce proceedings against her, alleging adultery. These allegations were false and untrue, and after a four days' hearing before a jury she came out with an unblemished name. The husband came to the Court immediately the three years were up and filed a petition on the ground of separation. There was a genuine possibility of a slur being carried on against Mrs. Calame and against her children, and she sought to get the decree in order to remove" that slur. His Honor allowed Mr. Grant to call Mrs. Calame's evidence about the divorce proceedings against her that had been dismissed. Answering Mr. Goodall the respondent said she had an income of her own. The entire costs of the previous proceedings were obtained from her husband. She agreed that might be .about £4OO. She did not remember saving, "Why did I not got in first?" when served with her husband's petition last February. She had not made any remark of the kind. She was acting so that no slur should attach to the children. Counsel's Contention "I wanted to get my divorce," said witness, "and was going to proceed for it, but Mr. Calame did not give me time." Mrs. A. C. Webster, a lifelong friend of Mrs. Calame, gave corroborative evidence. His Honor said his present impression was that Mr. Grant could have accomplished all he desired by filing an answer to the husband's petition claiming relief. Mr. Grant said that in his answer the husband admitted the first five paragraphs of the wife's petition, including the ground of divorce. He therefore admitted that she was entitled to the benefit of a divorce decree. It had never been held that such a legal course as he had followed was a vexatious proceeding or an abuse of the process of the Court. Mrs. Calamp wanted to free herself of the suggestion that she had been divorced. His Honor: fehe could carry a copy of the decree abotit in the handbag if she liked.

Decision Reserved

His Honor said Mr. Grant was proceeding in a complex, confusing, troublesome way, which would involve the parties in unnecessary expense, and he was unwilling to encourage that. "Whatever the bare legal rights." said His 'Honor, "it is the duty of the Court to insist upon things being done in a simple, easy way and to discourage their being done in a costly, cumbersome way, when no real advantage can be shown." Mr. Grant asked His Honor to grant a decree on the wife's petition and to give her only the costs she could have got if she had filed an answer. Mr. Goodall said that, in spite of much research, he had been unable to find a similar set of proceedings anywhere in the records. He objected to Mr. Grant's request being granted, because the husband might have wished to show that tho separation was brought about by the conduct of the wife. His Honor said the husband had acted with an expedition and alacrity which was greater than usual, and which was not altogether generous. He would require time to consider his decision.

SEQUEL TO SEPARATION

WIFE GRANTED DECREE

petition based on the existence of a deed of separation between the parties since November, 19.30, was brought by Agnes Elspeth Potaka (Mr. Finlay) against Uruoto (or Patrick) Potaka, before Mr. Justice Callan in tho Supremo Court yesterday. The petitioner said she was married to Potaka, who was a Maori, at Silverdale, in May, 1929. Their lifo* together was unnappv, and a deed of separation was entered into in Novembcr, 1930. He had not contributed to her maintenance since. . . His Honor issued a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months.