DIVORCE PRACTICE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 369, 10 March 1932, Page 11

DIVORCE PRACTICE.

Argument Before the Full Court. AN ORDER OPPOSED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 10. A question of law arising out of divorce practice is occupying the attention of the Full Court. On December 4, 1930, Alfred Shepherd Dawson Rose, of Wellington, entered into a deed of separation with his wife, which contained a covenant that he would not endeavour to compel her to cohabit with him or seek to enforce any restitution of conjugal rights. On June 24, 1931, Rose filed in the Supreme Court a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights, a copy of which was served on Mrs Rose, who, instead of filing an answer and pleading therein the deed of separation as a bar to making the order, ignored the proceedings and failed to take legal advice. When the matter came before the Chief Justice for hearing, he raised and reserved for the opinion of the Full Court the question whether the deed of separation existing as it did, but not having been pleaded by the wife, was a bar to making an order for the restitution of conjugal rights. . When the case was called in the Full Court, counsel for Mrs Rose asked leave to argue the point involved, as amicus curiae, explaining to the Court that his client, while failing to file the required answer, nevertheless desired to oppose the order being made. The request was granted. The hearing is proceeding.