DONNELLY'S DUCATS

NZ Truth, Issue 695, 12 October 1918, Page 2

DONNELLY'S DUCATS

His "Missus" Waats a Moiety

Application for Alimony!

At the Supreme Court last week there was an echo of the Donnelly case, when Hughena Jessie Donnelly, the petitioner m the recent case where she successfully sued her husband, Marshall Donnelly, for separation on the grounds of misconduct, applied for alimony. The matter was iheard before Mr. / Justice Chapman, and simply resolved itself into what amount the petitioner shbuld pay. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the petitioner and Mr. J. McGrath for the respondent. Mr. Justice Chapman: I see this was not a divorce case. She only sought a judicial separation. That's rather unusual m these times. Mr. Myers: They are middle-aged people and possibly the step was taken on account of their having a growing daughter. In stating the case for. the petitioner, Mr. Myers stated that the respondent had been voluntarily paying £ 3 a week for the petitioner's upkeep, and 30s a week for the support of the daughter, but they claimed that considering his financial position . THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH. The girl was seventeen years of age and was being educated .musically and otherwise. The payment of £ 3 a week to Mrs. Donnelly had been . made by consent, subject to the amount being reviewed when the question of permanent alimony came up for discussion. He proceeded to outline Donnelly's financial position, which there had been some difficulty m actually ascertaining. However, it was known that he owned a house at Oriental Bay valued at £3000, -which was let for £3 5s a week, he had a large holding of shares m the tea kiosk at Oriental Bay, he had 1700 shares m a picture enterprise, he owned property, at Miramar and elsewhere and . had money m at least two banks. He estimated his rating at £11,116 outside the house at Oriental Bay.. . Mr. McGrath challenged certain of these figures and after a short discussion, the Judge reserved his decision as to the amount respondent should be called ,upon to pay.