who did Kevin O'Neill marry?

[~MERLIN~]

They were divorced in NSW:

http://search.records.nsw.gov.au/items/1168873
http://investigator.records.nsw.gov.au/Entity.aspx?Path=\Item\1168873

[manalan]

That's brilliant Merlin. I would never have found that, thank you again.

I wonder why NSW? There's an Edward Kevin O'Neill in Deniliquin in a 1943 electoral roll. Was it easier to get a divorce in NSW?

[~MERLIN~]

WW2 service records show his sister brother as NOK:

http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/Veteran.aspx?serviceId=R&veteranId=980648

[manalan]

WW2 service records show his sister as NOK:

http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/Veteran.aspx?serviceId=R&veteranId=980648

That's his brother Ira Irwin O'Neill, with whom he later worked at the MON (Manger & O'Neill) family business in Echuca. Thanks for the reminder about the war records.

[manalan]

I haven't found Kevin's marriage to Dorothy Brereton but I have found Edward Kevin O'Neill and Dorothy Elizabeth O'Neill at the same Echuca address in the 1963 Electoral Roll.

[majm]

That's brilliant Merlin. I would never have found that, thank you again.

I wonder why NSW? ......... Was it easier to get a divorce in NSW?

At least one of the parties would (should ?)  have been resident in NSW when lodging the application.  Usually the petitioner would be the one resident in NSW. 

No, the Divorce laws in each of the states were similar, and by the 1930s until the 'new' Commonwealth laws of the 1970s it usually defaulted to one party (petititoner) citing the reason for seeking the divorce was because of their then spouse (the respondent) supposedly being involved with another (the co-respondent.) 

Cheers,  JM

[manalan]

That's brilliant Merlin. I would never have found that, thank you again.

I wonder why NSW? ......... Was it easier to get a divorce in NSW?

At least one of the parties would (should ?)  have been resident in NSW when lodging the application.  Usually the petitioner would be the one resident in NSW. 

No, the Divorce laws in each of the states were similar, and by the 1930s until the 'new' Commonwealth laws of the 1970s it usually defaulted to one party (petititoner) citing the reason for seeking the divorce was because of their then spouse (the respondent) supposedly being involved with another (the co-respondent.) 
,
Cheers,  JM

Thanks JM. Then it probably is my Kevin living in Deniliquin NSW in 1943.

A couple more questions...

Was the petitioner usually the first mentioned in the petition, or would that by default be the male?

The divorce record found by Merlin has a start date of 13 Apr 1942 and end date of 25 Oct 1948, which I take to be when the petition was filed and when it was made absolute. It seems like an unusually long time to me, or would that indicate some sort of problem, or resistance or attempt at reconciliation? Of course I know you can't actually give me an answer for this instance, but I'm wondering whether it was a common thing for A, B or C to happen.

Thanks so much for sharing your time and knowledge

[majm]

Petitioner is first named, and co-respondent is last named. 

Many divorce hearings/files start out as a Child maintenance issue, and then over the years develop further.  Also divorce applications were somewhat delayed by WWII.

The length of time is not as unusual as you may originally expect.  But it is longer than usual. 

Cheers,  JM

[majm]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17806001 SMH 13 Oct 1942

notice the "co re" and the order of the names

Cheers,  JM