RESTITUTION SOUGHT

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21040, 16 February 1940, Page 7

RESTITUTION SOUGHT

RESPONDENT WITH TROOPS HAMILTON COURT ACTION JUDGE RESERVES DECISION The difficulties arising when a woman, whose husband was in Egypt ■with the New Zealand troops, sought restitution of conjugal rights, were mentioned in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday, when Gertrude Olive Jefferies Johanson, of Waipukurau (Mr N. S. Johnson) proceeded against Bert William Johanson. After hearing evidence in the case His Honour reserved his decision. Petitioner stated that she married respondent in 1935 and some time after the marriage he became ill and had to take a holiday. They spent some time in the Bay of Islands, and later at an hotel in Auckland. One day while they were at the hotel he leit and did not return. She returned home and when she next located him he was working in a solicitor’s office. She met him and he promised either to return to Waipukurau or to make her a home in Auckland. Time went by without his providing the home and it was decided that she should go to Australia for a holiday and that he should get a home ready for her. However, he left his employers and went to Wellington. In September of last year she received a letter from him saying that on the next day he was going into a military camp. Petitioner wrote to respondent on several occasions in September and October but did not receive any reply. She understood that at present he was with the New Zealand troops in Egypt. Mr Johnson suggested that, if His Honour would make an order, respondent should be given four months from the date of service to signify that he would return to petitioner at the close of his military service. Mr Johnson referred to a recent case where a similar order was made by Mr Justice Callan.

“I will discuss this matter with my brother judges,” said His Honour. “It is an important matter and there are some difficulties in it. Uniformity will be necessary in such cases, and I will meet the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and Mr Justice Callan on the matter.”

His Honour agreed with Mr Johnson that the case was one where, had respondent been an ordinary civilian, he would have been prepared to make the usual order for restitution.