Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DIVORCE REFUSED

CAUSE OF SEPARATION COMMENT BY HIS HONOR The petition of Arthur Higgins, of Auckland, company manager (Mr. Gallagher); for divorce from Edna Francos Higgins (Mr. C. E. Clarke) was refused by Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court yesterday. The parties were married in December, 1922, and the petition was based on the allegation that they had lived separate and apart by mutual agreement since April, 1931. The wife denied an agreement to separate, and alleged that the separation which did take place was due to- the petitioner's wrongful acts and conduct. The evidence in the case was heard on Monday. After hearing legal argument, His Honor said he had a quite clear mind, and no useful purpose would be served by reserving decision. He had no difficulty in concluding that the parties came to live apart because they had agreed to do so, and this was not a case of constructive desertion. It remained for the respondent, said His Honor, to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the separation was due to the~wrongful acts or conduct of the petitioner;- It sufficed if she could establish'conduct on his part that would meet the reprobation of decent people in the- community.

If there was only the testimony of the husband and wife the position would be very difficult, but the wife's testimony was supported by two witnesses, said His Honor. He did not believe that either of them wilfully or falsely invented incidents, and on their evidence he was satisfied that Higgins manifested toward his wife bursts of ungovernable temper and that he treated her in the presence of others with studied contempt and neglect and indifference with the intention of humiliating her. His conduct was such as ordinary decent people would reprobate, and that was the effective cause of the separation. The man was not entitled to his divorce. The petition was dismissed with costs on the lower scale, disbursements and expenses to be fixed by tho regitrar.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19380706.2.161

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23082, 6 July 1938, Page 18

Word Count
332

DIVORCE REFUSED New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23082, 6 July 1938, Page 18

DIVORCE REFUSED New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23082, 6 July 1938, Page 18

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert