SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3782, 7 September 1926, Page 26

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. Wednesday, September 1. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) KEINAN v. KEINAN. In the case of Lavinia P. Keinan v. Charles W. S. Keinan, motion to make a decree absolute, Mr Callan, instructed by Mr Hanlon, appeared for petitioner, and Mr White, who appeared for the respondent, said that the question of maintenance had been arranged. An order was made in terms of motion. BERRY v. BERRY. In Berry v. Berry, motion to make a decree nisi absolute, Mr Moore appeared on behalf of jetitioner and Mr Barrowclough for respondent. Mr Barrowcleugh said he did not wish to offer any opposition, but there was the matter of the custody of the child. It had been arranged that maintenance should be paid, and that had been secured by agreement between the parties. The only question .was the degree of access, and he suggested one day every month between 1 and 5 p.m. There was a good deal of ill-feeling between the parties. Mr Moore said it was a case of habeas corpus, and had been dealt with by the Chief Justice. The father had no objection to the mother s.eing the child. The great objection was that the mother was not normal, and the man’s feeling was that she was not really fit to be left in charge of the child. That had been the opinion of the Chief Justice also. The woman had friends who were really at enmity with the father. His Honor made an order making the decree absolute, respondent to have access to the child on the terms nentioned.

BARRINGTON v. BARRINGTON, Margaret Jane Barrington petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Norman Launcelot Barrington. Mr Moore, who appeared for petitioner, stated that the evidence had been taken on affidavits in Wales, England. Respondent had at one time been an inmate of the Presbyterian Orphanage, and had joined the Expeditionary Forces and had married in England. The evidence taken in Wales had now been filed. He had expected Mr Clark, of the social service, to be present in court to verify the entries in the books. Respondent had entered the home when he was 12 years of age*

His Honor said petitioner had received letters, and asked why they had not been put in as exhibits. Mr Moore replied that he had not known of the letters. The affidavits had been completed in England. He had the letters now. Petitioner had senfthe letters out but they had not been made exhibits. Replying to his Honor, Mr Moore said respondent had written from the steamer Ruapehu and from Christchurch. He had left petitioner with the child in 1919. His Honor remarked that if a decree were granted it might be that it would not be recognised outside New Zealand, with the result that if the lady got married again she might be committed for bigamy. Counsel had better find out the status, however complicated it might be. It depended upon how far the section in the New Zealand rules went outside the Dominion. If the lady obtained a decree now she did it at her own risk. The application was refused. ALLEN v. ALLEN. Hester Ann Allen applied for a decree nisi and for the custody of her two children, and maintenance. An order was made in terms of motion, custody of the children being given to petitioner, and maintenance granted at the rate of los a week until the children reached the age of 16 years, with reasonable access to the children. MOBBS v. MOBBS. Arthur Mobbs applied for a restoration of conjugal rights, the respondent being Annie Mobbs. Mr White (instructed by Mr Hanlon) appeared for respondent, and intimated that his client did not intend to offer any opposition. Air E. J. Anderson, who represented petitioner, stated that the parties had been married in Christchurch in 1912. Petitioner had then been employed in that city for 14 years. The two apparently lived, more or less happily, together until 1920, when respondent exhibited a marked change in her demeanour towards petitioner, and from then trouble occurred. Respondent was now living in Christchurch with the two children, taking in boarders. In 1924 petitioner obtained a new situation and came to Dunedin, the understanding being that respondent was to follow him. She came eventually, and they lived together for a while, but then trouble arose. She was not happy here, and told petitioner that she could not settle in Dunedin; that it was not good for her health. She said she hated the sight of petitioner and did not want to be seen in the streets with him. She returned to Christchurch to the home they had formerly left. Petitioner during the subsequent months had endeavoured to get her back, but she had refused to come. He had asked her to come back to Dunedin last Christmas, and she had practically refused to come. At Easter time petitioner went to Christchurch to see his wife, and asked her to return and live with nim, but she flatly refused; stating it was no use her living with him in Dunedin. In May of this year petitioner wrote to his wife asking her to come to Dunedin, and she replied stating that she would not come. She made some complaint about the state of her health, and said in conclusion that it would be madness for her to come to Dunedin. Petitioner wrote again, and endeavoured to get his wife to be reasonable, and to come back to Dunedin, but she made no response. He had been sending her £3 a week for maintenance of the twin boys, now close on 12 years of age. He w'ould give evidence that he would take her back and provide her with a home in Dunedin. He wanted his wife and his two boys with him.

Evidence wa3 then given by Arthur Mobbs (petitioner) and by Mr Anderson. His Honor said Air Anderson had to satisfy him # that petitioner _ was really honestly desirous of obtaining what he asked for in the petition. Looking at the matter, it was impossible for him (His Honor) to consider that there was an honest desire on the part of petitioner to get him wife to cOme back to him. Petitioner had failed to satisfy him as to that. The petition was dismissed.