AFTER THE DIVORGE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11706, 19 December 1923, Page 6

AFTER THE DIVORGE

PETITIONS FOR ALIMONY SEVERAL APPLICATIONS BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE. “WILL DRAG YOU TQ GUTTERS Several alimony matters came before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at a chambers sitting of the Supreme Court yesterday. Mrs Fanny Andrews, represented by Mr H. F. O’Leary, petitioned for permanent alimony against her former husband, David Andrews, for whom Me A. Dunn appeared. The parties, who were elderly, had been separated for a number of years, said counsel, and the wife now desired a permanent order in case that Andrews, who had since married again, should predecease her. He had previously paid the sum of £3 per week. A decree nisi had been obtained by the husband in 1921. Mrs Andrews had appealed, but the Court of Appeal had dismissed her petition. An order was desired with security for permanent alimony. Mr Dunn strongly opposed the amount being increased. He stated that it was quite impossible for Andrews under present circumstances tc give anything in the way of security. He was quite willing, however, to consent to an order by the court. His Honour said he would take time to look into the matter, and adjourned it until Saturday. A similar course was adopted by the Chief Justice regarding the application of Emma McGill against Daniel McGill. Mr P. W. Jackson appeared for the petitioner, and Mr C. Buxton for the respondent. A writ of attachment was asked for compelling the respondent to pay arrears. Mr Buxton contended that he was not in a position to pay £2 per week, and that the respondent was in a better financial position than McGill. Mr Jackson: He said would bring her down as low as he possibly could—to the gutter. The Chief Justice: He will have to pay up the arrears. .•. .1 will adjourn the matter until Saturday. "NOT A FIT^PERSON” A MOTHER AND DRINK. QUESTION OF CHILD’S ’WELFARE. “A woman who is drinking is not fit to look after a child.” commented the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday, when dealing with a matter in which he was asked to make an order to send a child with its sisters to a convent. The latter had been the subject of a previous order of the court at the request of their trustees. “I never make an order in favour of a woman who gives way to alcohol,” added the Chief Justice, who declared that an excitable woman who even only occasionally gave way to fits of intoxication was not a proper person to have a child in her keeping. He had to look to the welfare of the child. That was the first consideration.