A CELIBATE'S WIFE

NZ Truth, Issue 889, 9 December 1922, Page 5

A CELIBATE'S WIFE

The Parson's Predicament

The World, the Flesh, and^the Devil. Girls, this taking of a husband seems to be becoming more and more of a gamble. Who will turn out the best partner cannot be decided • with any certainty. Hometimes a man who m his single years has manifested v distinct fondness for the nut-brown ale changes his affections entirely and permanently for the owner of long nut-brown tresses, and with others it may be the other way about. • Certainly, those who have led most blameless lives are not always the best partners, but taking it by and all It would seem that a girl -who chooses a clergyman would have a fair chance of a serene married life. • However, th'Gre is a nigger m that wood pile, too. In the Divorce Court m Wellington on Monday there appeared a youngish woman who had embarked on a most distressing married life with a cleric, and wanted Judge Salmond to rid her of this nominal partner. The petitioner. Rpßetta Ellen Boyle, who wae represented by Mr. E. p. Hay, said she married James Patterson Boyle m 1915. He was then the Presbyterian Minister m the parish of Warkworth, near Auckland, In September, 1917, they ' BROKE UP THE HOME. She went to live with her mother m Wadestown, Wellington, and he was on the point of going: into camp. He did go into camp after some time and remained there until February, 1919, when he was discharged. He stayed at her mother's place for a few. days and then went to his own. mother's place near Hastings where ho was pursuing the occupation of a farmer. They had agreed to live, separate lives, as they could not get on together. His Honor observed that the story was a most peculiar one. There was nothing In it loading up to the decision to separate. Counsel to petitioner: Was it a real marriage?— No. Was there any consummation ?— No. And there was no refusal on your part? — No. To his Honor, witness said respondent had agreed to pay her £1 a week and from February, 1919, had done so regularly up till quite recently. Counsel: You both recognised it would bo impossible to havo a happy married life? — That Is bo. '.. His Honor: I confess I don't understand this atory yet. Why were these proceedings not taken for nullity? Counsel: My client is naturally very sensitive abqut this thing . His Honor: Though I can on these grounds grant a divorce, I will have to have it proved as clearly as if it were a nullity suit. If two ycung people were to .agree to separate m this casual way because they did not like each other and wanted a divorce, I would not grant one. This has to be proved. ,\, Counsel: It will bo proved, jour Honor: His Honor to petitioner: Have you any ground for complaint except the non-confirmation of tho marriage? — Witness said their temperaments clnshed at every point, and they were üble to agree on nothing. What did you quarrel about? — We did not quarrel abcut anything; we couldn't even discuss anything. We could not live m the same house together. His Honor: It is not Impossible. You could have lived together if you hnd wanted to. Anyway, you say your marriage has never been consummated and It wna through no fault of yours or any refusal? — Yes, sir. In reply to a quostion ttß to why the respondent had loft the church, witness said he could hnrdly back to his chargo In the circumstances. His Honor: You moan ho oould not very w«ll po bnok to iho church nsfter having left you? — Yes, sir. " After corrobonitivo evidence of tho separation hnd been given further hearing of the ense. . was adjourned penriinK the scciirlnK of the oVklpmcp of two medical men as In a nullity suit.