DIVORCE SOUGHT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19099, 21 August 1936, Page 14

DIVORCE SOUGHT

SEPAARTION OF PARTIES ‘A HEART-BROKEN LETTER’ Amongst the divorce petitions brought before Mr. Justice Calkin in the Auckland Supreme Court on Wednesday was that of Veronica Elizabeth Forbes (Mr. llolmden), who sought divorce from Atlioll Courtenay Forbes on the grounds of desertion and separation. Neither party is now in New Zealand and legal questions of domicile arose.

Mr. llolmden said the domicile of origin of each of the parties was Now Zealand. The marriage took place in Auckland in December, 1924, and they lived for three years in Auckland and three years in Wellington. In 1929 they went to live at Mahurangi, and it was there that the respondent left the petitioner ill January, 1930. lie went ostensibly' to make a home for her and her child in Wellington, but she learned aiterwards that he had disappeared. Alter staying for some months with her people in Gisborne, she went to London and earned her living there. She learned that her husband luid been convicted for embezzlement and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Afterwards he wrote to her asking her to return to him in New Zealand. HUSBAND’S LETTERS

His Honour said it seemed perfectly plain from his letters that lie wanted her back. “Uf course, neither of them wants the other now,” added His Honour. "That is perfectly plain.”

Mr. llolmden said the husband did not carry the suggestion any further by making any provision for her. Ilis Honour: What earthly purpose could he have in writing that letter? Mr. Holmden: It may have been to get the child back.

His Honour : He seems to be very fond of the child? Mr. Holmden said the husband had opposed his wife’s application for custody of the child. Counsel argued that the parties’ domicile or origin in New Zealand hud existed ever since'.

His Honour said his impression was that the wife had never had any intention of living with him again. It was a heart-broken letter that he had written her after regaining his freedom. It was the letter of a man who had brought disgrace on himself and was very ashamed and asked if he was beyond the pale. He followed this up with another letter, but she replied to neither of them. What more could he have done? Mr. Holmden said he could have sent her maintenance. When the}’ met in London later he made no suggestion that they should live together again. His Honour reserved his decision.