A DIVORCE PETITION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3899, 4 December 1928, Page 30

A DIVORCE PETITION.

ALLEGED INTERFERENCE BY MOTHER-IN-LAW. QUESTION OF DOMICILE RAISED. AUCKLAND, November2o. Interference by his mother-in-law was stated in the Supreme Court this morning by Colin Findlay Gordon, a civil engineer, in the employ <f the Ceylon railways, to be the cause of trouble in his home. Gordon, who petitioned for divorce from his wife, Marion Gordon, was represented by Mr Hampson and Mr Fawcett. Mr Northcroft appeared for tlu respondent. The petitioner said he ordered his mother-in-law to go to her ho ae in Australia. She did this, and after a succession of -rows with witness the respondent followed her mother. The marriage took place in February, 1912, and e separation at the end of 1913. He had seer, his wife only twice since then, when they discussed a divorce in Sydney in 1919. “My wife asked for £lO,OOO alimony, which was more than 1 could afford,” said the petitioner. “ That terminated the proceedings.” . The interview took place while the petitioner was on his way to New Zealau on furlough fol his health. While in this country he acquired a small holding at Rotorua in partnership with Dr H. Bertram with a view to settling there next year. The petitioner was cross-examined at length by Mr Northcroft, hose intention w is to show that the respondent wished t< return to him in Ceylon. - Conns'* put in correspondence from the wife asking the petitioner to receive her. He admitted ignoring the letter. Re-examined by Mr Hampson, w’tnoss said the respondent’s letter was a-dis-appointment to him. They ha< separated on the understanding that they would not rc-unitc. Mr Northcroft replied that there had been no actual agreement to separate. A mere de facto agreement was not sufficient. Th” petitioner had, moreover, failed to establish a New Zealand domicile. The court had therefore no power to grant a divorce. “Itis a peculiar circumstance that the petitioner has selected New’ Zealand to prosecute divorce proceedings,” remarked counsel. “ This country, so far as I know’, is the only one of the dominions that offers mutual separation as a ground for divorce.” Mr Justice Frazer: Are you suggesting that New Zealand is becoming another Reno?—(Laughter.) Mr Hampson: My friend’s lack of patriotism is simply appalling.— (Renewed laughter.) Opposing counsel submitted legal argument on the question of the validity of the separation and domicile. His Honor intimated that he wished to give further consideration to both points, and the case was accordingly adjourned.