UNUSUAL CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22596, 8 December 1936, Page 14

UNUSUAL CASE

SEPAKATION SOUGHT WIFE ALLEGES DESERTION PASSAGE BETWEEN COUNSEL Tho unusual proceeding of a petition for judicial separation was taken before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court yesterday. The petitioner was Emily Maud Clare (Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Winter), and the respondent Charles Vavau Clare, retired engineer, of Te Atatu (Mr. Singer and Mr. Inder). The parties were married in August, 1902, and they have one child, a son born at Vavau in the South Sea Islands.

The ground of tho petition was an allegation of two years' desertion against the husband. Ho admitted that lie had been separated from his wile for that period, but alleged that this had been brought about by her odensive conduct. .Mr. Sullivan, in opening, said the real reason for tho husband's leaving home was another woman. Mr. Singer said that was denied. Reference to Maintenance Mr. Sullivan said the proceedings had been precipitated because in April last the respondent had stopped the allowance of £3 a week ho had been making his wife. Ho had also been allowing her a free flat and the rent from another flat. When ho wished to mako a rearrangement matters came to a head. His Honor said that if the purpose of the petition was to determine the amount of maintenance that could be done without entering into other matters.

Mr. Sullivan said he would prove that the husband had deserted his wife without just cause and that she was entitled to a separation. She did not want a divorce. She had scruples against divorce. Adultery was not alleged against the husband. The petitioner gave a detailed denial to various allegations made by her husband, of using bad language to him, throwing cups of tea over him, quarrelling with his tenants and accusing him of infidelity. Effect of Judicial Separation Petitioner said she had tried to get her husband to return, but ho told the friend who accompanied her that he was happier with another woman. She said she understood the effect of a judicial separation was that there could not bo a divorce. A number of witnesses were called by Mr. Sullivan to support the allegation that Clare had deserted his wife. Mr. Singer in the course of his opening said there had never been any suggestion on the part of the husband that he wanted a divorce.

Mr. Sullivan: 1 object. That is monstrous.

He said that Mr. Singer, on behalf of his client, had come to his office and offered him £'looo to let divorce proceedings go on. Mr. Singer repeated that there had been no suggestion of divorce proceedings on the part of the husband. Mr. Sullivan turned and moved as if to leave the Court, and Mr. Singer said, "1 give him tho lie direct when he says I ever offered him £1000." His Honor intervened to say that this aspect of the matter might be left over in the meantime. Counsel would inform him when they agreed what tho position was.

Mr. Singer then continued his opening address, at the close of which the case was adjourned until this morning.