HISTORICAL DIVORCE CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16740, 23 May 1922, Page 8

HISTORICAL DIVORCE CASE.

fv,ASGN V. MASON

MOTION FOR DECREE ABSOLUTE.

Andrew dames Mason’s petition for divorce from Henrietta. T\ inifred Mason, which has been before the Courts for a long time, came up again in the Supreme Court, before his Honor Mr Justice Adams, this afternoon. His Honor Mr Justice Herdman refused to grant petitioner a decree nisi after the trial in 1921. The Court of Appeal, in November last, directed that he decree nisi must be granted. His Honor Mr Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court in Christchurch on November 26, acting on the direction of the superior Court, made a decree nisi. This afternoon Mr F. D. Sargent, with him Mr W. Oracroft Wilson, for petitioner, moved for a decree absolute.

Mr T. W. Rowe, for respondent, opposed the motion. Mr Sargent said that last session provision was made for dealing with petitions granted under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes .Vet of 1920. Under that legislation respondent must show cause why the decree nisi should not be made absolute. The Court of Appeal had expressed clear opinions as to the facts, as well as the law, and it should be only a formal matter for the Supreme Court to make the decree absolute. Mr Rowe had put in a statement of his objections to the motion, making allegations against petitioner, hut there was nothing in it that had not been considered by the Court of Appeal. Even if Mr Rowe could prove his allegations, the case would be in the same position as when it went before the Court of Appeal. It would be different if Mr Rowe had something new in'his statement, but there was nothing new in it. There was nothing for petitioner to answer, and the decree absolute, he submitted, should be made at once.

His Honor said that he must consider whether the separation of the parties was due to petitioner’s misconduct. Honor’s duty was to hear evidence relevant to the question whether or not the separation, at the date when the Magistrate made the separation order, was due to petitioner’s misconduct. Amevidence relative to that issue would be adm is sable. Other evidence would not be admissible. (Proceeding.)