UNDEFENDED DIVORCES.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 127, 29 May 1919, Page 2

UNDEFENDED DIVORCES.

SIX CASES DISPOSED OF. CO-RESPONDEXT AS WITNESS. Half-a-dozen undefended divorce cases were heard by Mr. Justice Stringer at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. R. A. Singer appeared for the petitioners in all j the actions. One of the rather rare cases m wnicti the petitioner is assisted by the evidence of the co-respondent was that of Samuel James and Florence Allen. According to the petitioner's evidence! the marriage took place at Stratford in 1003, and there were three surviving children of the marriage. In 1915 he; went into camp. Prior to this his wife had taken in boarders, of whom the co-| respondent, Henry Charles Lawless, was one. At the time of his departure he i knew of nothing between his wife and Lawless, but afterwards there came into ! his possession a letter in Lawless' handwriting addressed to the respondent. He was not sent to the front, but Lawless was, and on his return to Xew Zealand the respondent went to live with him. Lawless, who was present, gave evidence in corroboration, and stated that Ihe did 60 with the consent of the resI pondent. He stated that there were i now two more children, of whom he was j the father. The respondent, he added, wished to retain the custody of all the i children. His Honor granted a decree nisi, reserving the question of the children's : custody for consideration at a later date. I A formul order for costs on the lowest I scale was made against the co-respon-dent. THE WATCHER WATCHED. A rather strange story was told in the lease of William Mitchell Holt-Harris and ! Allice Kathleen Doris Holt-Harris, a husband* petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. The petitioner stated ; that he was married in 1013, at Christ- ' church. There were no children. Ho I went into camp last year, and on returni ing home to Auckland upon demobilisaI tion lie had cause to suspect the conduct of his wife. Hefore he went to camp he j believed that his wife was some sort of a j drug-taker, and afterwards he received I letters from the co-respondent, Frederick Lowther, that he was living in the respondent's house and "keeping a watch" on her. He (petitioner) was no party to this arrangement. He took steps, after his return, to have the house watched, and took part in the watch himself. Tha respondent and co-respondent moved to a dwelling in rear of a shop, where he also watched them, finally making an entry, accompanied by another man, into ' a bedroom which he found them to be sharing. I A decree nisi was granted, to *oe made absolute in three months, with £20 costs against the co-respondent. DESERTED TO THE WAR. Cruelty and desertion were pleaded Iby Mrs. Margaret Josephine Barnett in applying for a divorce from William Oeorge Barnett. TJie petitioner gave evidence that the marriage took place at J Tiitimarunui in 1012, and there wae one Ichild. Almost from the start her husband, half-caste Maori, behaved cruelly to j her, and about a year after the marriage she obtained a separation and mainten- | ance order against him. He did not obey J the order, and she had to take further proceedings against him. He afterwards j disappeared, and all her attempts to find him were vain until a few months ago, when she found that he had gone to the J war under the name of "Thomas Barnett." He returned last March, and she immediately toQk divorce proceedings. He was served with the papers in her presence, and admitted that he had enlisted under an assumed name to avoid his j responsibilities. He also stated that he I would not return to her. The petitioner ' added that for :>. number of years she I had worked to support herself and her I child. I After hearing evidence by the petij tioner's mother his Honor granted a decree. DRUXKEXXESS AXD CRUELTY. The grounds of the petition brought i'by Mrs. Lily Mazxoleni against Orlando ] Jlazzoleni were habitual drunkenness, I cruelty, and failure to provide maintenance. I The petitioner stated that from the ! early part of her married life, which j began in 1902, her husband was addicted Jto drink. As the result of his conduct j and his failure to support her she took 1 separation proceedings when they were j living at Taumarunui, but subsequently they came together again for a while. His habits did not improve, and when in drink he took to knocking her about. He used to come home drunk on several nights every week, and was especially bad on Saturday nights. A couple of years ago she got a second separation j from him at Auckland, and not long j afterwards he was sentenced to two i months' imprisonment for assaulting her. It wae only when he went to the front I that she got any regular support from ; him. .Since his return she had seen him ,in liquor, and had found it necessary to j seek police protection from him. She j had no reason to think that his conduct I and habits had improved. A decree nisi was granted, the petij tioner being given the interim custody of her two children. \ NASTY IX HIS CUPS. ] Similar grounds were given in the . application made by Mrs. Rosalie Gladys [ Martin, who sought a separation from , Joseph Josiah Martin. Mrs. Martin ■ stated that after her marriage at Waihi ■ in 1000 she lived with her husband at Ile Aroha. In course of time he took to ■ coming home drunk, and in drink he . proved to be quarrrekome and violent ,Ho threatened her life repeatedly and I once knocked lier down in the "street. sort of thing went on for a number . of years, until finally she took her five ,' children and came to live with her mother in Auckland. Afterwards he came several times to see her, but on every occasion he was under the influence of liquor. ! The petitioner's mother, who had lived with the parties, gave corroborative evidence and a decree nisi was made, the custody of the children being left for settlement later. AN ADMISSroX MADE. Misconduct was the ground of an annli- 1 ! cation by Mrs. Alleta Gertrude Taylor! for the dissolution of her marriage with Laurence Wilson Taylor. ' ■ ' A u,n, Ta ;' lc £ eaitl tlmt she was married iin 1904 at Praneistown, South Africa! J Later ehe came to Xew ZeUand from! South Africa, and settled at Whangarei The marriage almost throughout had teen an unhappy one . Her husband went to the front towards the end of 1917 but for some time before this he had been of a wandering disposition. She had secured evidence of his misconduct both in Xew Zealand and in England. _1 ,7 ri i ten of misconduct, 1 made by the respondent since his return .from the front, was given, and his Hon™ granted a decree nisi, to be made abso , lute in three months, there being no i children of the marriage.