CUSTODY OF A BOY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3862, 20 March 1928, Page 18

CUSTODY OF A BOY.

UNHAPPY WAR MARRIAGE.

AMICABLE AGREEMENT REACHED.

AUCKLAND, March 16. Certain unusual aspects were revealed in. a case which wag heard in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Adams to-day, when Maud Elizabeth Lilly made application against Lesli© Gordon Lilly, for th.e custody of their boy, Peter, aged 10. Mr W. J. Sim appeared for the petitioner and the respondent was represenated by Mr J. D. Hutchison.

The marriage, Mr Sim said, was a war one, but unfortunately it was not a happy one, and when the parties came to Nevr Zealand a deed of separation was entered into on account of incompatibility of temperament. They were of the same mind in regard to the boy’s education, having decided to bring him up in an Englsh environment, and he was enrolled at Harrow for 1930. Mr Lilly, when in England, felt that the boy would benefit by a trio to New Zealand, and he was accordingly sent out to his father, a company manager in Dfinedin. The parties had been divorced, and Mr Lilly had married again. Mrs Lilly was disturbed and alarmed by the tenor of Mr Lilly’s letters to her in respect of the boy, and she wished to affirm her rights under the deed. She was apprehensive that unless she did that the boy might be completely weaned from her, and she asked for the right to withdraw the boy from Mr Lilly if anything was done to undermine her affection or unduly interfere with the boy’s education. Mr Hutchison said that Mr Lilly was willing to give Mrs Lilly access to th© boy and to take him for a holiday in New Zealand fop a month once a year. Ho would not consent to custody of the boy being given to her. There was nothing in the deed of separation to give Mi's £illy prior right to custody. Mr Lilly was not prepared to be put into the position of a petitioner in court.

The Respondent, in evidence, stated that his income was £750 a year, and although be did not propose to give his son an expensive education, he could give him a good one, and a good moral education at that.

Further evidence revealed the fact that there was no ill-feeling at all among all the parties concerned —Mrs Lilly, Mr Lilly and his second wife. They were all fond of tne boy, and the petitioner agreed tearfully that the second Mrs Eilly was a very estimable lady, and that the boy was well cared for and happy. Petitioner said she came to New Zealand because she was afraid that Peter had been influenced against her. If she could be sure that their mutual love would not be undermined she would leave him in his present home, which she could not criticise. Peter was at a college in Dunedin—one of the finest boys’ schools in the world.

Mr Sim said that a joint guardianship might be arranged. His Honor: Airs Lilly’s attitude all through has impressed me favourably. In every way she has shown a commendable desire to guard the boy’s interest, even at the cost of her own natural affections. It is a very unfortunate case, not only in its origin, but also in its developments. Tne position has been made very difficult by the father marrying again. It is a case for an arrangement between the parties. Neither party is morally or in any other wav unfit to have custody. I will adjourn the case for an hour and a-half to allow counsel to prepare an order based on the willing consent of both parents. When the case was resumed Mr Sim said that the parties had arrived at an agreement on the subject of joint guardianship. The boy was to remain in Dunedin at the same college; but Mrs Lilly should have him alone for six weeks every year and access to him for as long as she remained in New* Zealand. It was stated that this was only the basis of an order which would be drawn up in Wellington. This being settled, Mr Hutchison raised another point, the petition of Mrs Lilly for alimony. Mr Sim argued that it was not possible to estimate what Mrs Lilly’s financial position was at the present time, and suggested that on those grounds the petition should stand over. His Honor said he was of opinion that he would not be justified in letting the petition for alimony stand over: but he added that on the facts before the court he would not be justified in making an order.