WEDDING DAY SEPARATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10545, 23 March 1920, Page 5

WEDDING DAY SEPARATION

STRANGE TALE IN DIVORCE COURT. Parted on their wedding day, and never since reunited. That was the gist of a curious story related at the Auckland Supremo Court in an undefended divorce action. The petitioner was Mrs Maida Dufaur McKinnon, and the respondent was John Thomas McKinnon. The ground of the pcti. tion was desertion.

The petitioner said that her marriage took place at Wellington in 1907. In accordance with a previous arrangement, she left the same afternoon to visit her parents at Sydney, leaving her husband behind and taking with her a little boy of five, her husband’s child by a former marriage. It had been agreed that her husband should follow her, but ho failed to do and for more than a year he oE fercd excuses. He sent her about £9O in the course of twelve months. Mr Justice Sim: Why didn’t you come back to New Zealand?

The petitioner said that she had no money, and her husband never asked her to come. She had been supporting herself and her stepson for a number of years past. , She kept up a correspondence with her ' husband until about twelve months ago. _ She would have taken divorce proceedings before, but for lack of means. Her husband was her first cousin, and she had known him from childhood.

James Joseph Butler, solicitor, stated that ho entered an appearance on behalf of tho respondent, who now resides at Kohukohu. Ho produced a letter from the respondent-admitting desertion. The letter stated, “I have never lived with her, and I do not desire to do so.” Mr Butler • added that he had known tho respondent for seven or eight years, and had never heard him speak of his wife. Ho was not aware that ho was married.

His Honour, remarking that the case was a strange one, said that the petitioner had proved desertion. He grantcd a decree nisi, with costs.