DIVORCE PETITION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17343, 16 July 1924, Page 7

DIVORCE PETITION.

HUSBAND WHO WENT AWAY.

A sitting of the Supreme Court in divorce was held by Air Justice Adams

to-day. In John Edward Orocombe (Mr Twyneham) v. Caroline Crocombe (Mr F. S. Wilding), counsel for the husband said that he did not intend to proceed with the petition, which was based on separation by mutual agreement.

A counter-petition by the wife on tho ground of desertion was heard.

’The wife said that she married petitioner in 1910 and there were three children by the marrige. After the marriage she lived in Auckland, Wellington and other places, and then returned to Auckland. In 1920 her husband went to England, returning in November of the same year. In the following Alarch he left her, but between the time of hri return to New Zealand to that date they were not on speaking terms, nor did they occupy the same room. He told her that ho had had enough of her and he left in Alarch. He said that he was going to Wellington, but did not leave a definite address. Through a friend she wrote to him, but his reply was that he did not intend to come back. He said he would let her hare money when he got some. Letters written by the respondent to the petitioner were returned to her. In 1922 she applied for a maintenance order after having gone to Wellington to see her husband. Cecil G. Drury, law clerk, said he had called on Crooombe personally, and the latter admitted that he had deserted his wife in Alarch, 1921, and had no intention of going back. A decree nisi wa-s granted, to be made absolute in three months. Interim custody of the children was given the wife and costs on the highest scale were allowed her.