SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 288, 3 December 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Denniston.) The sittings of the Auckland Supreme Court were continued yesterday afternoon. TUBBS v. AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OOUNCIL. , Henry Arnold Talbot Tubbs sued the Auckland University College Council for i.700 lor alleged wrongful dismissal. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. F. E. Baume, K.C., appeared for the respondent; with him was Mr. Prendergast. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff', a professor at the University College, was appointed by deed, under seal, for five years, ending March, 1899. No fresh agreement was made, but Prof. Tubbs remained at the original salary until 1907, when his services were dispensed with. The matter in dispute was whether the fact ot the Council continuing the services of the plaintiff at the old salary implied a contract to continue him in office, subject to reasonable notice on either side. Various authorities were quoted by counsel for each side, His Honor said he would give his decision on the legal points during the week. DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. A HAND TO MOUTH EXISTENCE. Fanny Emily Gooch sought to dissolve her matrimonial ties with Charles Augustus Gooch, on the grounds of desertion. Mr. W. P. Endean, instructed by Mr. Pnllen, appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of respondent. Petitioner said she was married to respondent on April 18, 1882. There were six children of the marriage, one of whom was alive On February IS, 1897, her husband went out of the house, saying he was going to look for work. Since her husband left her he had contributed nothing to her support, and she had led a " hand to mouth " existence. Another witness said respondent had not lived with petitioner for ten years. A decree nisi was granted. . GODFREY v. GODFREY. Sydney Herbert Delop Godfrey petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Margaret May Godfrey on the grounds of her misconduct with Henry Mills, who was cited as co-respondent. Mr. Lundjon appeared for the. petitioner, and there was no appearance of respondent or co-respondent. Petitioner said his wife disappeared at the beginning of last year. He subsequently located her at the Door of Hope Home." where it was ascertained she had been in trouble. She refused to see him, and he had not seen her until service of the writ. The matron of Ihe home said she admitted respondent, who gave her name as Margaret Lawrence. A decree nisi was granted. BAKER v. BAKER. Alfred Thomas Baker petitioned for the dissolution of his matrimonial tie with Isabella Baker o.i the grounds of her misconduct with Henry Skinner, who was cited as co-respondent. Mr. Lundon appeared for petitioner, and there was no appearance of respondent or co-respon-dent. . Petitioner said the marriage took place in October, 1895. and respondent left him lor another man in 1900. He condoned 1 the offence, and took her back for the sake of the child, and they lived together until last January, when she agam went away, saying she preferred to live by herself. She told petitioner not to interfere with her, and that she was quite satisfied to live with Skinner. Another witness said he boarded with respondent and co-respondent The two 1 Utter used to - skylark." She would chase him and then run into her /°° m > and co-respondent followed her, and they i would stay together in respondent's bedroom for hours. His Honor was not satisfied that there ! had been no complaisance on the husband's part, and reserved Ms decision. MEYER v. MEYER. Emily Meyer petitioned for a dissolution "of her marriage with John Meyer oa the grounds of desertion. Mr. Pren-der-ast (instructed by Mr. Pullen) appeared for the petitioner, and there was so appearance of respondentpetitioner said her husband deserted her in January, 1002—a year after the wedding. On one occasion her husband struck "her, and she went home to her mother. She returned the following day with her mother, and found that respondent had =old up everything. Respondent refused to provide a home for her, and she had not seen him since untii a few weeks ago. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. iIARLBOROUGH v. MARLBOROUGH. Kebecca Hariaorough sought a dissolution of lier marriage with Ohas. Waiter ilarlborougli on grounds o£ desertionMr. Brookneld appeared ior petitioner. There was no appearance of respondent. Evidence was given by the petitioner that she was married in 1898. Her hus-ba-nd left her in 1900, and she had nor seen him since. The ease was allowed to stand down, pending consideration of the question ol domicile. RHODES v. RHODES. Alfred Rhodes, an Auckland boot manufacturer, (for whom Mr. London appeared), petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Esther Rhodes, on the grounds of her misconduct with Arthur Ludgreen Winter, who was cited as co-respondent, The suit was undefended. Petitioner said he was married to respundent on 17th .September, ISB3, and lived with her until 9th March, 1903, when she went away with eo-respond*mt. Petitioner took her back in September the same year, when co-respond-ent was sent ;o gaol for twelve months. When co-respondent ea.me out of gaol she went away with him again. Petitioner again endeavoured to get her back, but she declined, and disappeared out of Auckland. He traced her to various places, and eventually found that she wa.s stayins with co-respondent at a boardinghouse in Symonds-street, There were J seven children, isue of the marriage. I Evidence was given to the effect that I respondent and co-respondent had been i living together at various places as man and wife. A decree nisi was granted, to be made I absolute in three months, with costs i against the co-respondent. J HORSFALL V. HORSFALL. ! Hose Flora Hephzlbah Horsfall sought a dissolution of her marriage with James ■ Horsfall. Mr. Prendetgast appeared for petitioner, and there was no appearance ,of respondent Petitioner said that her , | husband was living with another woman. ! and that the two of them used to annoy her. On one occasion her husband had W~->U->4 her down and kicked her.

Ano-thcr ■witness said he boarded with respondent in 1902. Respondent was living with another woman other than petitioner as man and wife. Respondent told witness that he was divorced from his wife. A decree nisi .was grantiJ, RICKETTS V. JSfrnrjJTS. Albert Ricketts petitionea for a dissolution of his marriage with Emma | E;i.-•»*,■ son the grounds of her miscon- ■ dtHjJi """'-'th Thomas Kneighton Sheldon, j who' "vfas cited as co-respondent. Mr. J. j R. Lundon appeared for the petitioner, j and there was no appearance of respon- i dent. The petitioner said he was married to \ respondent on January 16th, 1896, and | lived in New Plymouth and Waitara | until 1902, when they both went to Eng- : kind. Witness returned to New Zealand ! in September, 1904, and his wife followed ; six months later, She wrote to petition- I er and told him she was coming out with i another man. As a result of letters he received he met respondent and coI respondent on January 27, when his wife admitted misconduct. Another witness deposed that Te.spondent told her that she would not go back j to ! ive with petitioner;, that she had) been living with co-respondent since they j started on board the snip, and was going to live with him. A decree nisi was granted, with costs against co-respondent.