AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Waikato Times, Issue 12868, 15 May 1914, Page 4

AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

A DOCTOR'S SUIT. "I DO NOT LOVE YOU." AUCKLAND, Thursday. A divorce case which has created some interest locally came before his Honor Mr Justice Cooper in the Auckland Supreme Court this afternoon, when Dr George Gore Cillon (Mr Me Yeagh) applied for a decree nisi against his wife, Kathleen Noveria Gillon, on the ground of desertion. In opening the case, Mr McYeagh said it Mas an unusual one. It was based upon constructive desrtion for two years and actual desertion for three years. The constructive desertion consisted of two years during which the parties resiled in the same house. This relationship continued for a jx?riod of two years, and at last the petitioner became exasperated .and endeavoured to bring his wife to a better frame of mind 'with regard to her position but he failed to do so. On the occasions on which he attempted to do this, something in the nature of a scene ensued, during which the petitioner used protests and leproaches towards the icspondent. Thinking that perhaps a change of scene von Id effect some improvement in respondent's attitude, lie arranged that she should pay a trip to Wellington. She remained there for two mouths, hut after returning there was no change, and she maintained the same attitude. Ultimately the petitioner arranged that she should pay a visit t«i England for a period of a year, nnd'she left sometime in April, 1911. A\ hilr*->Jio was away he sent her money to maintain I er, and had continued to do so right i-p to the present time. He wrote to her asking her to come l>ack, and she 'epiied in a letter couched in very positive and peremptory language di dining to do so, thus making it clear, said counsel, the case fell within his Honor's jurisdiction. One letter ran : 'Dear Core, 1 have received your letter in which you ask me to return and live with you as your wife. lam quite unchanged, and can only repeat my words, ind refuse utterly and completely." The respondent added that she had not for oik- moment regretted the step she had taken, and as time went on she realised more and more that it was utterly impossible to return as the petitioner's wife. "There are many reasons why I should not return," continued the letter, "and if it were only for the fact that 1 do not love you, that would be quite sufficient, lor to live with you under such circumstances would he both revolving and degrading .to me." - v At this stage Mr McYeagh suggested that in the interests of public morality cirtain portions of the evidence should not lie puMi.shcd, and his Honor made an older lorhidding the printing of thai" portion ol the evidence relating to the sexual relationships of the petitioner and the' respondent. Evidence was given by the petitioner, who stated in reply to His Honor that he was quite prepared to continue to piovide for respondent's maintenance. His Honor said he would make an older to th it effect. This was not a rj.se of misconduct. Respondent was not a guilty woman, her conduct Ix-ing the result, i vidently, of her mental attitude. His Hon >r reserved judgment, pending the production of proof as to the •actual date of the marriage.