A "SEPARATED" WIFE

NZ Truth, Issue 1045, 5 December 1925, Page 7

A "SEPARATED" WIFE

SHE FINDS NEW LOVER AFTER THREE YEARS h, Can She Then Obtain A Divorce?

If a wife is separated (by mutual arrangement) from her husband for more than three years (the statutory period mentioned m the divorce laws), arid if, after that, she lives with another man^ is* she then entitled to a divorce ?

One of the questions arising but of this question is whether the male lover was earlier looming m the offing as a contributing factor to the separation. Such a case, heard m Wellington, . gave Mi-; Justice Alpers pause, and he roserved his decision. . ,■ / ALLEGED DRINKING. It was the petition of Unica Mary Boderick for divorce- from . Ernest George Boderick, now residing m Makirikiri, whom she married m Auckland m 1908, and to whom she bore six children, four surviving. They lived together m Auckland, Napier, and finally Wellington. In Wellington, m 1919, according to- petitioner's evidence, they en- ! teredinto the deed of separation I i, on account of respondent's pen - B\chant for drink and consequent SjSfailure to maintain her or the Wchil.dren. Nor did his sense of responsibility show any improvement after the separation; his payments were few and far between, and petitioner was forced to maintain herself and the children. She also had a little help from her mother. ; After more than three years of ' this, she went to live with another man, but the original separation had been brought about only and entirely by respondent's .drunkenness. Questioned by his Honor, she asserted that her relations with the man, one W« O, Fisher, a laborer,

had not commenced till 1922. She wanted the divorce, she said, chiefly m order that Boderick might be restrained from annoying her. He had complained about her relationship with Fisher, but had taken no further action than to harass her by visiting the house while drunk. "CONCUBINAGE." The evidence of Fisher was. that he had been a lodger m the Boderick home. He said he had been invited to the home by Boderick, who said he needed the board money to help to, support the children. Boderick left the house seven ' years ago, but witness , had not commenced his present relations with petitioner until over three years afterwards. Questioned by his Honor, witness asserted that if he had the opportunity he would marry petitioner and support her and the children. Counsel for petitioner, Mr. W. Perry, who had already disclosed the peculiar circumstances m his opening address, urged that the separation was entirely apart from any influence of Fisher, and that the statutory three years had elapsed before petitioner commenced the illicit relations. "I would like to regularise the relations between this man and woman," said his Honor. "Fisher seems to me to be a man who has acted very well m the circumstances. On the other hand, the Court is asked to license concubinage." Decision was reserved. »■ '.-