ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD CASE

Taranaki Daily News, 21 December 1931, Page 15

ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD CASE

MORIBUND PROCEEDINGS. NON-PAYMENT OF ALIMONY. I A petition for divorce and a crosspetition, filed in 1920, but which never reached finality, were referred to in ’ a" judgment given by Mr. Justice Mae-.-Gregor in the Supreme Court at Wellington on Friday. > ■ The parties were Arthur Gadsby, ’petitioner, and Sarah Gadsby, responds ent, and the judgment was upon a motion by respondent for leave to issue a writ of attachment against petitioner for non-payment of alimony. There was a cross-motion -by the petitioner; for an order diminishing the amount , of alimony payable and for suspension of the original order.

Leave to issue a writ of attachment was refused respondent, and the future operation of the order made against petitioner in April, 1921, was suspended until the further order of the.cojirt, no order being made as to costs. Petitioner is now 76 years of age, and his wife is 66 years of age. The petition for divorce was filed in December, 1920, and an answer and cross-petition were filed. In April, 1921, the Chief Justice (the late Sir Robert Stout) made an order for alimony of £3 a week against petitioner pending the prosecution .of the divorce proceedings. The order was complied with until May 8, 1930, ‘and respondent sought to enforce payment of the arrears by a writ of- attachment. Mr. Justice MacGregor said he -was informed the parties had been living apart for over 30 years, respondent was in bad health, and petitioner was past active work. When the order for alimony was’ made petitioner was comparatively wealthy, having an estate of about £30,000, producing about £2OOO a year. Owing to unfortunate speculations and the recent decrease in land values, he was now practically pehnilesa, all his available assets being mortgaged to a bank, whose securities apparently would not at present realise the amount due thereon. Until May 8, 1931, the bank advanced the periodical payments to respondent by way- of alimony, but since then had stopped those payments, allowing petitioner a small sum for his own subsistence. The respondent appeared to be in an impecunious state, relying mainly on the alimony for her support. His Honour said he was satisfied that at present petitioner wm unable to pay the arrears; and that his neglect or refusal to pay during the last few months had not been contumacious, so that the writ of attachment would not be granted. The divorce proceedings wer.e not pending in any real sense, for they had long been moribund, if I not -technically dead, and either party could long since have had them dismissed for want of prosecution. Suspending the order would not release petitioner from payment of the arrears, but it would prevent respondent making further use of that order as a permanent provision for maintenance. If the parties could not come to terms the respondent could take proceedings under the Destitute Persons Act, 1910.