DIVORCE CASES.

Auckland Star, Issue 123, 24 May 1919, Page 7

DIVORCE CASES.

THREE DECREES GRANTED. RETURNED SOLDIERS' PETITION. Three undefended divorce eases were heard by Mr. Justice Stringer at the Supreme Court this inorning. -Murray Cleghorn (Mr. Hall Skelton) alleged misconduct by his wife, Eva Maud Cleghorn, as the ground of bis petition. The marriage, he stated, took place in February, 1917, after his return from active service. Xot very long afterwards his wife took to staying out late at nights, and paid no attention to his protests. In March of last year matters canu> to a head, and she left him, saying that she intended to go her own way. He was then aware of her association with a man named Albert Edwards. He taxed both of them with misconduct, and both admitted it. Edwards declared that he was not aware that the petitioner was married. He saw them together several times after this.

W. Vallance, solicitor, produced admissions of misconduct signed by the respondent and co-respondent in his office, setting out that they would not contest the suit. His Honor "ranted a decree nisi. AFTER A QUARREL. Amelia Felton (Mr. Hall Skelton), succeeded in her petition against Reginald Alfred John Felton, the ground being misconduct. The petitioner stated that the marriage took place in 1901. and there was one child. At various times subsequently she had to complain of her husband's conduct with other women. Last year a quarrel took place and he left home, and on several occasions afterwards she saw him in company with a young woman. She taxed him with infidelity, which he denied. She then threatened to have him watched, and he declared iis willingness to nia'ie an admission.

Carles E. Matthews, solicitor, produced a written confession of misconduct, made to him by the respondent, the petitioner identifying the signature thereto. A decree nisi was granted. EIGHT YEARS ABSENT. Desertion was alleged by Elizabeth Victoria Fuller (Mr. J. G, Haildow) ia applying for a divorce from Frank Chas. Fuller. The petitioner said that in 1911, about two years after the marriage, her husband left her, and did not return, though he wrote her letters and promised to do so at various, times up to last year, when he sent her £4, the only money she had received from him since he left. In his last letter he asked her to go to him at Dunedin, but made it clear that he would not provide a house for her. She did not accept the offer. She ha 4 earned a living for herself and her child since the respondent's departure, and had been assisted by relatives.

A decree nisi was granted, with interim custody of the child and costs on the lower scale.