UNDEFENDED DIVORCES.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 52, 1 March 1919, Page 6

UNDEFENDED DIVORCES.

A WANDERING "WIFE. WANTED TO SEE THE WORLD. Several undefended divorce actions were heard by Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court this morning.

In the case Thomas James Sheppard (Mr. J. F. Pullen) v. Nellie Elizabeth Sheppard (Mr. Singer), the respondent entered an appearance, but no defence. Cecil Cheeseman, cited as co-respondent, did not appear.

The petitioner stated that the marriage took place in February, 1010, and there was one child. He lived with his wife at various places for four years. At the end of that time she told him that she wanted to see more of the world, and suggested that he should put the child in a home for a couple of years, in order to enable her to gravel. He would not agree to this, and later she left him. Some time afterwards she sent for him, stating that she was employed in an hotel at Wanganui under the name of "Miss Sheppard.'" He got her to leave this work - and conic to Auckland with him. She then expressed, a wish to live in the country, and he got a position at Kaihu. There hefound her to be rather addicted to liquor, and she soon began to visit Durgnville against his wishes, staying away all night. ■(One night he returned home and found her under the influence of liquor, anil in need of restraint. She was struggling wit4*> him when some letters fell out of her pocket, and he impounded them. One letter (produced) related to au appointment with another

Henry Thomas Garrett, a friend of the parties, said that the petitioner called him in after tlle trouble came to a head, and the respondent made him a free admission of misconduct. She put it into writing, and signed it in the presence of a Justice of the Peac<>.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, with costs £20 and disbursement, against the co-respondent. A satisfactory arrangement was made between counsel for the interim custody of the child, and the petitioner and respondent shook hands with apparent cordiality before they left the Court. A MATTER OF PRECEDENT. Constructive desertion was the ground on iwhich Mrs. Maud Kllen Donnelly (Mr. Singer) applied for a divorce from John 'Donnelly.

The petitioner gave evidence that the marriage took place at Auckland in 1002, and there were two children. She lived at Takapuna and afterwards at Wailii, where her husband was employed as a miner. In 1!)05 her husband took to drinking, an. abused and struck her in the face. On three diiTerent occasions he tried to choke her. He used to get into bed with his cloth<_ and boots on, and remained so until he had slept oil the liquor. For three years she threatened to leave him, and" In 1908 she did so. taking the children. He had since paid her sufficient to maintain the children,»and she had earned her own living. The petitioner's mother, who had. lived with the parties at Waihi, gave corroborative evidence.

His Honor said that he would like some authority for the contention that the respondent's conduct was a ground for divorce. After hearing argument, his Honor remarked that be could find no English precedent for constructive desertion on such grounds, and in fact the only precedent appeared to be a decision of Mr. Justice Cooper. He would consult with the latter and give his decision later.

Mr. Singer stated that he was sure that a large number of decrees had been granted recently on exactly similar grounds, but apparently they had not I>een reported. He had appeared in one case of the kind not long ago. A TIFF WITH AN AXE. Constructive desertion was also urged in the case of Annie Florence Wilkinson (Mr. J. J. Butler) v. Henry Wilkinson.

The petitioner s.iii'. that she was married in 1900. Her husband took her to live near Awaniti, in a two-roomed cottage, with very liftle furniture. She lived there with him for about three weeks. During this time he did not treat her well, and one day, when she had returned from a visit to a female cousin, he threw an axe at her. She immediately went back to her parents, and refused to live with him again, as she was afraid of him. He had done nothing to support her. She had heard that at one time he was looking for her with a revolver.

His Honor said that he was doubtful whether one angry tifT was a ground for a wife's departure from her husband.

Mr Butler explained that the case had been sent to him from the country, and apparently no attempt had been made to get corroborative evidence. He would ask that the hearing be adjourned sine die. This was granted. MORE EVIDENCE WANTED. Mrs. Nora Mabel Gertrude Evans (Mr. Singer) asked for a dissolution of her marriage with John Andrew ir'vana, a bullock driver, on the ground of his misconduct. She stated that following her marriage in 1900 there was trouble in the home, and she secured no less than three separation orders. There were two reconciliations, but the final separation came in August, 1915. Since then she had been supporting herself and her two children with almost no help from him. Some months ago she heard that he was living with another woman, and she secured an interview with him. He subsequently sent her a written admission of misconduct (produced). At the interview he told her that be was living; with a half-caste girl.

His Honor said that he was not willing to act on the written confession, which was of a kind that was regarded with a good deal of suspicion in England. He thought that *oim> direct evidence of the respondent's mode of life ought to he procurable.

Mr. Singer, after consulting his client, said that he found that such evidence was available, and the case was stood down till Tuesday. SIX MONTHS TOGETHER. Florence Doris Grant (Mr. Singer) alleged misconduct against William .lame. Grant. She stated that fallowing her marriage in August, 1914, she lived only six months with her husband, who then left her and went South. He did not return, and she had since supported herself and her child. Lately she heard that he was in Auckland, and in consequence of certain other information she took divorce proceedings. Mr. A. J. Moody, barrister and solicitor, <»aye evidence that the respondent consulted him with a view to defending the action, but sfter they had discussed the matter he decided not to proceed with a defence. Subsequently he instructed witness to appear and put in a written admi.-eion of misconduct. The respondent was quite frank about the matter, but would not name any co-respondent. .A decree nisi was granted.