ORDERS TO RETURN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22818, 27 August 1937, Page 15

ORDERS TO RETURN

HUSBANDS AND WIVES

INTERVENTION BY COURT JUDGE CRITICISES PRACTICE The practice of-taking Court proceedings to compel a husband or a wife to return immediately after a separation was twice criticised by Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honor said such action was more likely to make the breach permanent tlian to effect the reconciliation which presumably was intended. An adjournment for a month or longer to see if the relations between the parties would improve was at first ordered by His Honor in the case in which Neva Annie "Willis (Mr. Robinson) sought restitution of conjugal rights with Harry Robert Willis. On further consideration, however, after the luncheon adjournment, His Honor decided to grant the application. ''Here are two young people married only a short time," said His Honor, ''and within jii.uo days alter tlicy havo a quarrel and he put his wife out of the house proceedings arc instituted in this Court asking me to make an order that the husband should receive his wife back and render her conjugal rights." His Honor said such a course seemed less likely to lead to the express purpose of the proceedings being effected than if the matter was stood over and the parties left without any formal proceedings until it appeared there was 110 hope of reconciliation. Mr. .Robinson said the petitioner was sincerely desirous of living again with her husband. An Order Issued His Honor said he was not prepared at the moment to grant the decree as it appeared more likely to ensure per- ' manent antagonism than a reconciliation. The purpose of the proceedings 1 might be better effected by postponing j, decision for a month or longer to see lif tho parties might become more friendly. On resuming in the afternoon, His Honor said lie had decided that the petitioner was entitled to a decree, mainly 011 the ground that it was now some four months since she separated from her husband. In cases of this kind it should bo obvious that if the parties genuinely desired a reconciliation the best method of preventing it was to issue proceedings of this kind immediately after a difference had arisen. He ordered the respondent to receive his wife back to her home within 14 days. ". . A similar position arose later m the afternoon, when Lilian May Keven (Mr. Robinson) applied for restitution of conjugal rights against Harley Armstrong Keven. His Honor said the proceedings were started 011 June 1, about 10 days after the separation. He had a discretion, and he would not grant the petition where the petitioner had made no real or serious attempt to effect a reconciliation. He was much inclined to dismiss the petition 'at once, but he _ would take time to consider it, adjourning the case.

Other Cases Orders for the restitution of conjugal rights within 14 days were i.ssued in the following cases: —Esther Alma Whittficld (Mr. Matthews) against John William Whittfield; William Eric Barron (Mr. A. Hall Skelton) against Thelma Maud Barron; George Seymour Million (Mr. Matthews) against Jessie Million; Albert Edward Hogg (Mr. Dickson) against Annie Alice Hogg; Francis John Morris (Mr. Wheaton) against Inthia Lyla Morris; Margaret Wvatt (Mr. Robinson) against Frederick Thomas Bond Wyatt; Frederick William George Taylor (Mr. Haigh), against Ruby Mildred Taylor.

ACTIONS IN HAMILTON RESTITUTION ORDERS GIVEN MARRIAGE OF ONE MONTH [from our owx correspondent! HAMILTON. Thursday Stating tliat lie was still fond of his wife and wanted her back, George William Keir Bowen, farmer, of Huntly (Mr. King), sought an order for restitution of conjugal rights before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court to-day from Edith Mary Bowen. Petitioner said the marriage had taken place this year on May 3, but after living with 'him for not quite a month, during which she was away for two week-ends, respondent left him. To His Honor petitioner said his wife was discontented and was always ready to quarrel with him. She had refused to come back. A restitution order was granted, 28 days beinp the time fixed. Evidence of a honeymoon trip abroad and of a trip to the United States, from which sho returned alone, her husband going to South Africa, was given by Nancv Cranswick Nellie Neal (Mr. King), when seeking restitution of conjugal rights from William Fletcher Neal. On his return from South Africa respondent did not come to see her, said petitioner, and refused to live with her again. The order was granted, 28 days being allowed for compliance. '' The point whether travelling expenses should be allowed to the petitioner, who came over from Sydney to securp a divorce, was raised by His Honor when Hazel May Davys (Mr. rompkins) sought a divorce from Jack Douglas Davys (Mr. McMullin) on tho ground of separation. Ihe parties had been married in 1918, according to petitioner's evidence, and there was ono child. In 1931 she had gone to Sydney, but in March of 1932 had returned to complv with a restitution order. Thenafter her husband had lived for a year in a boarding-house and refused to return to her. Eventually she had gone +n <>vdnev again, both parties agreeing that that was the best course Respond cnt had supported both herself and her when a wife wants a divorce, she must come from anv part of tho world to get it, said His Mr. r Tompkins: It was with the consent of her husband that petitioner " °Adecree^"nisi was granted, to he tn-wlp absolute at the end of three months' Custody of the child was given to petitioner and travelling expenses on the lowest scale were awarded her.