DIVORCE SEQUEL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17342, 15 July 1924, Page 7

DIVORCE SEQUEL.

“ HIS FIRST DUTY.” , TO MAINTAIN SECOND WIFE. A case of a kind which, it was stated, b® expected to come before the MagTstrates* Courts frequently in the future, was dealt with by Mr Wyvern Wilson. S.M., this morning. A man who had secured a divorce and remarried asked to be relieved oi the responsibility of contributing to the support of his first wife. W illiam Henry Harris, of Hastings, carried (Mr Brassington), sought a cancellation of an o i der made against him at Timaru in October, 1920, to pay £1 5s per week to Ellen Harris (Mr Brown). Mr Brassington said that tiite case was one vvhicii lias arisen as the result of tne new divorce laws. The parties had separated by mutual consent, and subsequently secured a divorce. The complainant married again, and counsel submitted that as a matter of policj' the. mar, should be allowed to marry again. His former wife was in a position in which sh© could support herself, and in this connection counsel drew attention to evidence taken on commission. There were no children. Mr Brown submitted that Harris had taken on new responsibilities with his ©yes open. Complainant was under the impression that, having married again, he should be relieved of all his responsibilities. He was getting £5 per week Counsel admitted that while the order might be reduced it should not b© cancelled. The Magistrate : It looks as if the order should be reduced. When a rnan had obtained a divorce, practically by consent, after living apart for a certain number of years, and married again—as h© had a right to do—the maintenance of the second wife must come before his first wife. Mr Brown submitted that the order should not be cancelled altogether. Mr Brassington stated that the first wife was earning £4 per week. In reviewing the case, the Magistrate said the case was rather of some importance as an instance of a class v.’hich was likely to come before the Courts fairly frequently. It arose cut of an amendment in the divorce laws. The defendant had an order against her husband for 25s per week, and then they arranged to get a divorce—practically a divorce by consent after separation for three years —and he had contracted another marriage He had a legal responsibility for the maintenance of his wife. At the time of th© divorce and at the present time tho divorced wife was quite able to maintain herself. The ages of the parties did not appear in th© papers, but he presumed neither of them was advanced in years. It seemed to him that since the making of the maintenance order the circumstances had so changed that the matter should b© readjusted. The man had a wife whom he was legally bound to keep and he had not an extensive income. It amounted to about the same as what the divorced wife received. She earned £4 a week, and a bonus, and he earned £o a week. The complainant’s first duty was to his second wife and it did not- seem to be right or fair that he should have to contribute to the maintenance of his divorced wife. It was a divorce by consent, apparently without cause on either side. The maintenance order would he cancelled. “I think I shall continue to treat them equally,” said the Magistrate, in ordering each party to pay its own costs.