DIVORCE DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 117, 19 May 1932, Page 3

DIVORCE DAY.

SUPREME COURT BUSY. SIXTY UNDEFENDED CASES. MAN'S DISLIKE OP CHILDREN. A list of over 60 undefended divorce suits occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Herdman and Mr. Justice Smith at the Supreme Court to-day. There were two Courts. An extraordinary story was told in the case in which Dorothy Mildred Wright, of Devonport, was granted an order for the restitution of conjugal rights against her husband, Claude Edward Wright. Petitioner said the marriage took place at Hamilton in 1920, and there were two children. Difficulties began after the birth of the children. Her husband had always expressed a desire for freedom, to go when and where he wanted, and he said children "bound him down." He adopted the expedient of sending witness and the children away for holidays at her mother's home in Napier, or elsewhere, for long spells at a time. In the course of six years' married life, they had only lived together for three. He left her this year, and had refused to come back. Oil March 10 he sold up the home, practically over her head, and she had to recover her belongings as best she could next day.

An order for respondent's return within 1-1 days was made by Mr. Justice Herdman.

William Henry Haggard petitioned for a decree nisi against his wife, May Haggard, on the ground of her misconduct with John Henry Simpson. Petitioner said the marriage took place in 1924, and there were no children. His wife left him in 1929, and it was not until May, 1931, that he found out that she was living with Simpson in Wellington. Evidence was given that Simpson and Mrs. Haggard had lived together in Wellington as man and wife. They carried on"a fish business. A decree nisi was granted. Francis Gerald William Bullivant was "ranted a decree nisi against Ethel Bullivant on the ground of mutual separation, or, alternatively, desertion by respondent. Petitioner said the marriage took place in Sydney in 1001. Some time afterwards he had to go away to work, and he was away for two years, sending her maintenance regularly. When lie returned, he found his wife was living with her mother, and he had to live in the same house. There were frequent disagreements, and eventually they separated, the wife and her mother telling him to get out. He held, not lived with his wife since 1904. TOO MANY PARTIES. Louis Christian, who petitioned for a decree nisi against Maisie Christian, said that some years after the marriage his wife developed the liabit of entertaining extravagantly, and of going out to parties four or five nights a week. The children were neglected in consequence, and witness remonstrated, but to no avail. Witness had to send the children away to be cared for by respondent's mother. In the summer of 1921 respondent went away with a theatrical party, and he had not seen or heard of her since. . . His Honor granted a decree nisi on tne ground of desertion. COULD NOT SUPPORT HER. "He said he could not support me, and we agreed to separate. That was in 1924, and ho has not paid me any money since," said Ida May Brady, was granted a decree nisi in her petition against James Loclcwood Brady on the grounds of mutual separation. "In May last my wife went on a holiday and did not return," said Albert Fickling, who petitioned for divorce from Cathleen Fickling on the grounds of her misconduct with Ernest Miles, a marine. Evidence of misconduct at a house in Grafton Road was given, and it was stated that respondent had admitted misconduct. A decree nisi was granted.

SENT HER NOTHING. "My husband left me in Wellington in January, 1929, to go to Australia, it being arranged, that lie would send me tlie money to go over and join him, but he has sent me nothing," said Joan Harwell Harper, who was granted a decree nisi from Laurence John Harper on the grounds of desertion. The parties were married in 1927. "We agreed to separate in June, 1927, and since then have not lived together," said Edward Anderton, who was granted a decree nisi against Doris Anderton on the ground of mutual separation. SHE SAID " ALL RIGHT." "When we were living in Ponsonby in 1927 lie said ho could not live with me any longer. I said 'All right,' and he left me. We have not lived together since," said Iline Pearl Whyte, who was granted a decree nisi against William Whyte.

On the ground of desertion, Harold Garfield Holt petitioned for divorce from Amelia Catherine Holt. In November, 1928, respondent left him and their two children, and had not returned. A decree nisi was granted.

"While I was away at Helensville working in 191G, my wife left lier home at Onehunga and has not returned to me since," said Thomas Henry Morton, who was granted a decree nisi on the ground of desertion from Ethel Elizabeth Morton.

"My husband left mo and disappeared on July 12, 1925, and I liad a warrant taken out for Ms arrest, but the police have been unable to find him," said Beatrice Doris Churchill, who was granted a decree nisi against Alfred Ernest Churchill. The parties were married in England in 1910 and came to New Zealand.

A WIFE'S ADMISSION. "She said she was no good and was low, and it wasn't fair that 6he should came back to me. She admitted misconduct, but would not sign any papers," said Albert Siebert, when giving evidence in support of his petition for divorce from Hinemoa Mary Siebert. A decree nisi was made. "It was impossible for us to be happy and get along together, so we agreed, in January, 1929, to separate," said William Henry Rundle, who petitioned for divorce from Hazel May Rundle. A decree nisi was granted. A decree nisi was granted Gwendolyn Mary Butland-Mann in her petition against William R. Butland-Mann. They were married in England in 1919, and later cairie to New Zealand. Owing to respondent's intemperate habits when living in Wellington in 1925, they agreed to separate, and had resided apart since. George Joseph Riley was granted a decree in his petition against Mary Ann [ miey. Petitioner said his wife left him

at Waihi in 1912, and had not returned. On the ground of mutual separation, Ada Minnie Monk succeeded in her petition against George Augustus Monk. They were married in 1907, and parted in March, 1929. JUST WALKED OUT. "She didn't say anything, but simply walked out of the house and left mc while I was at work," said Frank Caryl Barber, who was granted a decree nisi in his petition against Edith Barber. They were married in England in 1902, later came to New Zealand, and were living at Devonport in September, 1927, when respondent deserted the petitioner. On the grounds of mutual separation, Janet Mary Curtis was granted a decree against i'ercy William Curtis. The parties were married in 1911, and separated in September, 1928. OTHER PETITIONS. On the ground of misconduct, decrees nisi were granted as follow: —James Claude Gibbs against Daisy Ellen Gibbs, John Ralph Penny against Jane Ellen Penny, Lydia Gill against John Henry Gill, Grace May Clempson against Thomas Clempson. Desertion was the ground on which decrees nisi were granted in the following cases: —Cyril Edgar Cooper against Ruth Beatrice Cooper, Agnes May Paterson against Benjamin Paterson, Kathleen A. Hanks against Francis Victor Hanks, Violet Fraser against Donald MacFarlane Fraser, Thelma Annie Nelson against George Thomas Nelson, and Alfred Herbert Payne against _ Marion Teresa Payne. On the ground of mutual separation extending over the statutory period of three years or more, decrees nisi were granted as follow: — Margaret C. N. Cricliton against Vivian A. Cricliton, Sarah Louisa Grogan against Edward James Grogan, Alice Maria Tibbits against Charles Percy Tibbits, Dorothy Cozens against Edward Victor Cozens, Ada Rosina Collioun against Joseph Colhoun, Thomas Stewart Wilson against Catherine Wilson, Margaret Anderson Young against Charles Henry Young, Matthew Myers Freney against Mary Louisa Freney, Charles Cameron Ward against Selina Ward, and Arthur Cyril Barriball against Janet Barriball.

Orders for tlie restitution of conjugal rights were made as follow: —Dorothy Mildred Wright against Claude Edward Wright, Beryl Frances Stott against Andrew William Stott, Christine Caroline Robinson against Archie Adam George Robinson, Rosalind, May Young against Bernard John Young* and Myrtle Josephine Proud against Cyril Hedlev Proud, James Edward Smith against Phyllis Smith, Rose Stitt against Thomas Stitt, William White against Doreen E. A. White.

Decrees nisi were granted petitioners in the following cases, in which respondents had failed to comply with orders made for restitution: —Lionel James Meredith against Ida Meredith, Frederick John Claret against Hedwig Marie Claret, Kenneth MacCormick against Margaret King MacCormick, Philip Jas. Western against Marie Jane Western, Florence Amelia M. White against James Gilbert White, Herbert Brierley against Mary Brierley. Isabella SlcCully was granted a decro nisi against William McCulley, 011 the ground or respondent's habitual drunkenness, cruelty, and failure to maintain her.