DIVORCE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 271, 13 November 1909, Page 5

DIVORCE COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Edwards.)' A PAINFUL CASE. DRASTIC COMMENT BY THE JUDGE. A particularly painful and shocking divorce case occupied the attention of Mr Justice Edwards at he Supreme Court this morning. The petitioner, Thomas Frederick Lloyd, a respectable young man, who residos in Onehunga, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Lenor Lloyd, his wife, on the ground of her misconduct with Henry John Walter Elson, an insurance agent. Mr J. R. Reed appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the respondent or the co-respondent. Mr Reed said this was a very painful case. The parties were quite young, and had only been married some nine months when the misconduct complained of occurred. The co-respondent was an insurance agent. The petitioner said he was a carter residing at Onehunga, and was married to the respondent in November. 1908. His 'Honor: I see from the marriage certificate that she was only 17 years of age. Mr Reed: That is so, your Honor. (To the petitioner) : Were you engaged for some time before being married? Petitioner: For two years and eight months. Mr Reed: Please relate what happened after your marriage. Petitioner: Last July I went home unexpectedly to lunch. I found the doors locked. A window was open, and I entered the house in that way. I found there a man named Osborne Mr Reed: He is not the co-respondent. He is another insurance agent, your Honor. Petitioner, continuing, said he asked Osborne and his wife for an explanation. Neither of them gave him any explanation. He told Osborne to leave the house. His wife said she would go out too. She came back in the evening with her mother, and the matter was patched up between them. A week later Osborne told him of his wife's misconduct with the co-respondent. Elson. His Honor: Is the man still going round as an insurance agent? Mr Reed: He has been shifted. His Honor: But has this business been reported to the manager? This is an absolutely shocking case, and the matter oucht to be reported. Mr Reed: Your Honor will observe from the photosrraph that !.he respondent was a particularly attractive young woman. His Honor: This is very serious, very shocking, thnt insurance agents should abuse the privileged position the}- are in to seduce women of a class highly respectable, but usually looktd upon as inferior to their own. The petitioner, continuing his evidence, said his wife left him and went to live with Elson. He met them one day going to the races at the Shore. Mr. Reed: Hod Elson anything on his hand? Petitioner: He v.as wearing the engagement ring I gave my wife. Mr. Reed: Did you speak to them? Petitioner: I spoke to my wife. She said she was going to live with Bison. She came to the house in the evening for iher clothes. She again said she was going with Elson. He asked her if she had any reason for doing so. She replied that there was no cause. He kept his house going for a month, and then went to live with his parents. He learnt that his wife and Elson were living together as man and wife in H& milt^n Mr. Reed: Did your wife's father advise you to take these proceedings? Petitioner: Yes. He said it was '/Ie best thing to do. Frank Webb, proprietor of the Westport Boarding-house at Hamilton, said he had known the co-respondent Elson for two yeai's. On August 28 last he arrived "with a girl whom he represented to be his wife. They occupied, a room together as man and wife. In granting a decree nisi, his Honor said: "I do not know that I have ever beard a more shocking case. That an insurance agent should seduce a girl in this fashion is a'-solutely" shocking. I certainly think the manager of the society should be made aware of the facts. You may inform him, Mr. Reed, that I have authorised the registrar to let him read over my notes." MY. Reed: I will certainly do so. I will write to him and tell him that he can see your note*. His Honor: Please say that I consider ■that he ought to see the notes. Mr. Reed applied for extra ■coats as against the co-respondent. The petitioner, he said, was not in affluent circumstances, and there had been a good deal of expense involved. His Honor: Oh, yes. There is no Teason why this young man should be penalised. Costs are allowed on the higher scale. Mr. Reed: The proprietor of tho boarding-house at Hamilton desires mc to add that he was, of course, quite •unaware of the true position. His establishment is a highly respectable one. His Honor: I do not doubt it. There is no reason to doubt his bona fides. TUCKER v. TUCKER. This case was adjourned yesterday (for the production of a satisfactory affidavit of ■service. Mr. Burton now put this in. His Honor granted a. decree nisi, to be made absolute in three calendar months. MURPHY Y. MURPHY. Alice Murphy petitioned for a. dissolution of her marriage with. John Murphy on the ground of desertion and •cruelty. Mr. J. R. Lundon appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the respondent. The petitioner said she was married in Auckland in 1901. Her husband treated her very cruelly, being 'habitually drunk. She left him in 1904, but he promised to go to her at Waikiekie. However, he deserted her, and since then had failed entirely to support her. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be .made absolute in three months. Costs w«re allowed on the lower scale. BRUNT V. BRUNT AND ANOTHER. John Brunt petitioned for a dissolution, of his marriage with Emma Edith Brunt on the grounds of her misconduct with Jajnes White. Mr. J. R. Lundon appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the respondent or the co-respondent. The petitioner said he was married in Whakatane in 1907. Some time afterwards his wife sold the furniture and left him. He searched for her and found her in Auckland. ' They lived together again for some time, but she again left him and went to live with the co-respon-dent as his wife. His Honor granted a decree nisi to be roftde absolute in thro* calendar months. Costi were allowed on tie lower scale. .

BUSH V. BUSH AND ANOTHER. George Arthur Bush petitioned for a divorce from his -wife, Catherine Margaret, on the ground of her misconduct with. Arthur T. Davis. Dr. Bamford appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of respondent or co-respondent. The petitioner said he was married to respondent in 1903. The union did not prove a happy one. His wife was con"tinually out, came home late and ' neglected her housework. He repeatedly spoke to her about meeting men. For some two years previous to 1907, whenever he spoke to her, she used to throw things at him and use bad language. In January, 1907, she went away without hn consent, and subsequently informed him that she would not return to him. Until September of this year he regularly contributed 15/ a week towards her support. For about a year he had reason to suspect her of misconduct with the co-respondent and in September he employed a private detective to watch her. As a result, he learnt that the respondent and the co-respon-dent were living together in a boardinghouse as man and wife. His Honor granted a decree nisi to bs made absolute in three calendar months. Costs were allowed on the lower scale.