On 6 February 1940, it was reported in the New Zealand Herald that Pansy, who was then aged 31, had been “sentenced by Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court… on an admitted charge of wilfully making a false declaration under the Marriage Act”. The counsel said “that the offence was most stupid, and showed a lack of responsibility on the part of the accused, who had never been in trouble before”. The judge said Pansy had “passed herself off as a spinster” when “in fact she was only a deserted wife”, “she was prepared to deceive another man, and almost succeeded in deceiving the registrar”. She was admitted probation for two years and ordered to pay £5 in costs towards the prosecution. They had been living apart since 1937. When Ted went enlisted in 1940 his address was listed as 61A Wellesley Street West and his next of kin (Pansy) was listed as 112 Wellesley Street West which was the same address as her parents from 11 years earlier when they had married. Ten years earlier, aged 21 in 1930 Pansy had been caught stealing a pair of stockings from a Karangahape Road shop in September. She pleaded guilty after placing the stockings in her bag and running from the store. When asked of her circumstances by judge, Mr. F.K. Hunt, SM., at the Police Court, Chief Detective Hammond said “she is married and her husband is working. She herself works in a factory and earns £2 10/ weekly”. When asked what she wanted to steal for she gave no answer. The magistrate imposed a fine of £5, or one month's imprisonment, and ordered her to make restitution of 6/11”. On 1 September 1941, Pansy was granted an undefended divorce from Ted. The Auckland Star piece on it said “Pansy Marguerite Milne Brimble (Mr. Schramm [her lawyer]) was granted a decree nisi of divorce from Edward Pierpont Brimble by Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court to-day. Petitioner gave evidence that about seven years after their marriage she had words with her husband about his friendship with another woman. She said he had to choose between them and he said he would stick to the other one, and agreed it was best that he and petitioner should part. That was in 1937, and she had not since lived with him, but had got a magisterial maintenance order”.
