PETITION FOR DIVORCE.
FOLLOWS DEED CF SEPARATION. [Pjir Press Association.! DUNEDIN, February 22. In the Supreme Court this morning a husband petitioned for a divorce un der section 4 of the Marriage Law Amendment Act, 1920. Petitioner’s counsel said that the parties had been separated, as tho result of differences, under a deed of separation since December, 1914. and had lived apart ever since. Counsel asked the Judge’s guidance as to how far tliey should probo into the conduct of the parties. Mr Justice Sim replied that apparently ail that had to be proved was that the parties had been married, and that the deed of separation was in full force and had continued in full force for a period of not less than three years. It did not matter really who had been to blame for the separation. The Act might have been worded more clearly. The petitioner, under the terms of the Act, wn» entitled to a decree nisi for the dissolution of his marriage. This would be granted, but it had better be move] for in Court to make it absolute at the end of three months in case any fresh light was thrown upon the interpretation of the section of the Act in the meantime.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19210222.2.67
Bibliographic details
Star (Christchurch), Issue 16358, 22 February 1921, Page 8
Word Count
209PETITION FOR DIVORCE. Star (Christchurch), Issue 16358, 22 February 1921, Page 8
Using This Item
Star Media Company Ltd is the copyright owner for the Star (Christchurch). You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Star Media. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in