Wife Took Children Away From New Zealand

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7279, 5 October 1933, Page 7

Wife Took Children Away From New Zealand

WAS SEPARATION DEED INVALIDATED? Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. An appeal from tho judgment of Mr Justice MacGregor, dealing with two actions between the same parties, v r as commenced in the Court of Appeal today. Appellant wms Conway do Vaicc Blenheim Williams, labourer, of Wellington, and respondent was his wife, Gladys Williams, formerly of Wellington and now living in England. On tho Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Smith.

Mr C. A. L. Treadwell, with him Mr H. J. V. James, appeared for appellant, and Mr W. E. Leicester, with him Mr T. McCarthy, for respondent. Both actions concerned in the appeal arose out of a marriage which resulted unhappily. In the first case, Mrs Williams sought a divorce based on a deed of of separation, and in the second action she claimed £4G3 10s as arrears of maintenance due under the same deed in respect of the two children of tho marriage. lU. s Williams succeeded in both cases.

Mr Treadwell, counsel for appellants, submitted that various clauses in the deed of separation were interdependent and that a breach of one of these clauses by either party was sufficient to vitiate the deed. Hence, by her action in removing the children from New Zealand and preventing his obtaining access to them, and by her molestation and annoyance of him by taking tho children away from him, Mrs Williams had committed broaches of the deed which rendered it null and void, ihirtkermore, she had broken a special covenant contained in the deed against her association with one Randall, which also was sufficient to cancel the deed. As a result the deed had not been in operation for three years, as was necessary to establish ground for a divorce, nor had it been in operation so as to give rise to liability on Williams’ part to pay the maintenance provided for therein. Mr Treadwell was followed by Mr James, who was addressing the Court when it adjourned until to-morrow morning.