DIVORCES GRANTED.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 279, 22 November 1913, Page 9

DIVORCES GRANTED.

i , , MARRIED TO AN HABITUAL." WIFE"? UNHAPPY LIFE.Two undefended divorce easee. were hea-rd at the Supreme Court this morn- ' ing by Hits Honor Mr Justice Cooper. Sorm- further evidence was taken in. ■the case Harriet Kortli v. Albert Hugo '. Konli, in which a divorce wan sought on tile ground of the husband's haibitual dnirrkpnnff**. prueky. and failure to support 'his wife. .Mr K. .1. Prendergast appeared for the petitioner. James Bishop, clerk at the Magistra.to7, - Court, produced the record of a separation order made against, the respondent by Mr Kettle. SAL, on the ground that, he was an tiabitual drunkard, and had ha him ally failed to support .his wife. Mrs KorUf. recalled, said hat she could not sta.t» the date of her husband's imprisonment. Before the marriage her father suggested to her that she should inquire into hit past, and ■ respondent himself offered to take her to t.hp po! •••<■, hut -he did no; accept the offer. His llffn.or said that, having- considered the matter, he was of opinion that he could grant a decree in the present mop. The A to, provided that a decree might lie granted for habitual drunkennets on tV part of a husband, coupled with either habitual cruelty or ■habitual failure to support hie wife. Tie .period during which such conduct must subs;.?! was '-four years and upwards.' but the Act did not say that the four years r-r.:*: .he those immediately preceding the application for a divorce. The evidence had shown that for a period at least the respondent did support his wife in some measure, and since h's marriage he had been twice -cnten.-'ed 10 imr>ri.vonmcnt for serious oflpnppi.. In 1!I()S he was sentended to IS months and declared an habitual criminal, and in -Tune last, to 12 months, which he was still serving. During- hie stay in gaol he v. as not a drunkard, but i'l hi.? NonnrV opinion he was an habitual drunkard, us he had undoubtedly contracted the habit, of excessive drink'iiKt- Short intervals of sobriety, evidently the outcome of rni-suceer-eaful efforus to shake off the hal.it, did not prevent a man from being declared an habitual inebriate. With regard to the period vvtien the respondent supported his wife, his .Honor held that such a break in the period of four years' habitual failure was no bar to a decree nisi, which he then granted, with the usual provisions. His Honor remarked that if the petitioner had made the very slighles , ; inquiry into the petitioner's antecedents &he would never have married him. DESERTSON. •Mrs Ada Minna. .Inlinston (Mr VV. K. Moore) applied for a divorce from her husband, (ie.-irge Henry .loimMon, on i.he ground of desertion. The petitioner stated that she was married to the respondent a-t Auckland in mo:>. Respondent at that time was an a.Meniianl at the Mental Hospital, mrt pave it up after hi- 7rmTrragc. RefoTe very long he sta-rtod to drink, but, I they lived fairly happily'for about three years. when maittere mtiio to a head, | ; and the home was broken up. After I about, three months they came together again, hut his drunken habits grew worsf, .'i nll c*nc fr>rvnrl "Lo ceo n\ix, to work to (support hi-TSplf. She also had to pa.wn her wi'ddmjl and engagement rings. In February, inns, respondent went away, saying that he was going to WelmgDon in sea.re.li of ■■work, lie remained about town for a short time, and then she heard that lip had gone to .Mokai to work in the bush. She wrote twice to him a-t that address, but got no re.ply. and the letters, were not returned to her by the dead letter office. She had heard nothing of him tince. and had heen support-rag ]ien*clf and one child of the marriage by her own exertions. Herbert M. 'Brooke, an inquiry agent, stated that in .Tune last, he went to Mokai and found the respondent, .who admitted his identity, and accepted .service of a citation in the present, proceedings. A decree nisi, to be moved to be .made absolute in three months, -was granted, with costs on -the lower scale. ' . i I