Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Itoko v Anton [1963] TTLawRp 5; 2 TTR 477 (8 November 1963)

TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

TRUK DISTRICT

Civil Action No. 276

ITOKO

Appellant

v.

ANTON (represented by Esetito)

Appellee

November 8, 1963

Appeal from judgment in Truk District Court ordering defendant to pay damages under Trukese custom for allegedly breaking up marriage of plaintiff -and his spouse. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that evidence shows plaintiff threw away his spouse, that marriage was therefore dissolved under Trukese custom, and that plaintiff is not entitled to damages.

Reversed.

1. Truk Custom-Divorce-Recording

Reporting of divorces under Truk custom to Municipal Office, or obtaining certificate from Magistrate with regard thereto, is purely voluntary and precautionary matter, and is of no legal significance regarding validity of divorce except as matter of proof.

2. Truk Custom-Divorce-Recording

Under Truk custom, any marriage may be dissolved by either spouse at any time at will without action by court, Magistrate or other official, by one spouse merely throwing away other spouse.

3. Truk Custom-Divorce

Under Truk custom, in order to determine if spouse has actually been thrown away, member of lineage of spouse who feels he or she may have been thrown away, for father of that spouse, should take up matter with other spouse.

4. Truk Custom-Divorce-Civil Liability

Where party makes it understood he has divorced spouse under Truk custom, and divorced spouse later marries another, party is not entitled to damages under Truk custom from individual whom divorced spouse later marries.

FURBER, Chief Justice

This is an appeal from a decision granting damages under Trukese custom for allegedly breaking up a marriage of a couple who had been living on Uman Island in Truk Atoll.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff-appellee had himself divorced his wife Patto at least by June 1961, and that the evidence clearly shows that the defendant-appellant had not even met Patto until late November 1961; that in the meantime Patto's brother had endeavored to have Anton return, but Anton had refused to come back with the brother, although he said he would do so later, but he failed to do that, and that the defendant-appellant's subsequent marriage to Patto had been with the permission of her brother.