Wife Asks Engineer for £l0,000 Alimony

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 521, 26 November 1928, Page 1

Wife Asks Engineer for £lo,ooo Alimony

SPICE FROM CEYLON PROBLEMS IN DIVORCE Interference by his mother-in-law was stated in the Supreme Court this morning by Colin Findlay Gordon, civil engineer in the employ of the Ceylon Railways, to be the cause of trouble in his home in the spicy isle. Gordon, who petitioned for divorce from his wife, Marion Gordon, was represented by Mr. Hampson and Mr. Fawcett. Mr. Northcroft appeared for respondent. Petitioner said he ordered his mother-in-law to so to her home in Australia. She did this, and after a succession of rows with witness, ■ respondent followed her mother. Gordon said til© marriage took place in February, 1912, and the separation at the end of 1913. Pie had only seen his wife twice since then, when they discussed divorce in Sydney in 1919. “My wife asked for £IO,OOO alimony, which was more than I could afford,” said petitioner. “That terminated proceedings.” The interview took place while petitioner was on his way to New Zealand on furlough for his health. While in this country he acquired a small holding at Rotorua in partnership with Dr. H. Bertram, with views to settling there next year. WIFE WISHES TO RETURN Petitioner was cross-examined at length by Mr. Northcroft. who aimed at showing that the respondenet wished to return to him in Ceylon. Counsel put in correspondence from the wife asking petitioner to receive her. He admitted ignoring the letter. Re-examined by Mr. Hampson, wit-

disappointment to him. They had separated with the understanding that they would not reunite. Mr. Northcroft replied that there had been no actual agreement to separate. A mere de facto agreement was not sufficient. Petitioner, had, moreover, failed to establish a New Zealand domicile. The court had, therefore, no power to grant a divorce. “It is a peculiar circumstance that petitioner has selected New Zealand to prosecute divorce proceedings,” remarked counsel. “This country, as 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 Honour intimated that he wished to give further consideration to both points. The case was accordingly adjourned.