SLIGHT EVIDENCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23123, 23 August 1938, Page 15

SLIGHT EVIDENCE

RESTITUTION DECREES I THE COURT'S REQUIREMENTS DIRECTION GIVEN BY JUDGE "Quite a number of these cases are presented to the Court upon what appears to be slight evidence," said Mr. Justice Fair, in the Supreme Court yesterday when hearing a husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. His Honor emphasised that the Court had to bo satisfied that the respondent had left the petitioner without just cause and that the petitioner genuinely desired the respondent back. "I have to be satisfied here," said His Honor, "that the petitioner genuinely desires to have his wife back and to live with her and that the purpose of bringing the petition is not simply to afford ground for a divorce earlier than the law would otherwise give. It is quite impossible to hold on the evidence before me that the petitioner does genuinely desire his wife back, and in the circumstances I require some corroborative evidence." Tho ease was one in which Stuart James Kernan Hislop, wireless operator (Mr. Schramm), sought a restitution order against Isobel Nan Hislop. The petitioner said they were married in September, 1936. His wife left him last June without giving any reason, and he could not make any suggestion as to why she had left. After His Honor had held that the evidence was insufficient, Air. Schramm was granted permission to recall a friend of the petitioner, who gave reasons for his belief that the petitioner genuinely wanted bis wife back. His Honor thereupon issued a decree directing the wife to return to her husband within 14 days of service.