SEQUEL TO DIVORCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3775, 20 July 1926, Page 18

SEQUEL TO DIVORCE.

CO-RESPONDENT’S MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. Included in the cases that came before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court on the 15th was one in which Sidney James Williams proceeded against John Fraser for the recovery of £24 19s 6d, under a judgment previously obtained. The claim originated in a petition in divorce, in -Inch defendant was co-respondent. Mr J. B. Thomson appeared for plaintiff and Mr B. S. Irwin for defendant. Mr Irwin explained that the money was due as a result of divorce proceedings in the Supreme Court on May 12, when defendant was cited as co-respondent. Defendant gave evidence to the effect, that he was married at Home, but did not live with his wife for any length of time. He was the co-respondent in the proceedings for divorce in the caso W T illiams v. Williams, and was .o v living with the respondent. There had been a good deal of illness in the house. He desired to divorce his wife on the ground of desertion so that he might marry Mrs Williams, but he had no money with which to get the divorce. His earnings for a long period had average 1 -ss than £3 *a week. In reply to Mr Thomson, defendant said he did not think that his maintenance of Mrs Williams had prevented him from paying the money. He had got into debt in other directions. He did not attend race meetings. Mr Irwin said it was only right that defendant should maintain the woman. Mr Thomson suggested that defendant’s maintenance of Mrs Williams was on the eamo footing as money spent in gambling or drinking. Mr Bartholomew said it was quite a proper thing that the defendant should maintain the woman whose husband had divorced her on account of her relations with the defendant. It would be a shabby action if he turned her out on to the street when his interference had caused the trouble between the husban ’ and wife. There was a moral responsibility on defendant to look a f t,er tho woman, and an order would be refused.