DIVORCE DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 110, 12 May 1939, Page 8

DIVORCE DAY.

SIXTEEN CASES.

RESTITUTION PLEAS.

A HUSBAND IN SIAM.

Sixteen divorce petitions and throe orders for tlip restitution of conjugal right* were heard by Mr. Justice Fair

in tlie Supreme Court to-day

Kvidence that her husband had pone to Siam in 1!»-J() and she had not seen him since was jriven by Mary Wakefleld (Mr. Hone) in petitioning for divorce auain-t Arthur Norman Wakefield on the "rounds of desertion.

She s*iid they were married on June 1. ISU:{. and lived in the South until I'.ld.S. There* were eiulit children of the niarriajre, all now over 21. From 1908 ii"til lie returned to the Dominion in 101 i> lie had various positions overseas. the final one ln'ili£ in Siam. In 1!I2O lie had told petitioner that he wished to return to Siani. She did not want him to e,,. J-'oi- two years he had sent cheques to her, but had then written and said he could not wo his way clear to keep her any longer. .Petitioner had then In bring up the family herself.

After petitioner liad informed hi< Honor that she knew the divorce applied only in .New Zealand a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after three months.

HUSBAND IN GAOL. Her husband was at present serving a eenfenco of four years* hard labour for robbery. th<» Atta robbery, eaid Ma vie Thelma Sticking* (Mr. Dickcon), when evidence in support of her petitioii of divorce from Arthur Vincent Sticking* on tin- •:rounds of respondent'* adniterv.

IVtiliiHior added that they wore married in l!».il at the Auckland registry officn a n<l had one child. They lived with witness' mother for some time, but eventually separated in lit. - !(J.

K\ ideme watt given by Joxcph IT. Bart-tim that from July 12 to Augiiet 9 in I!>:!K flu- husband lived in a room in St. Pan] Street under an assumed liiimc mill with a woman who was not hin wife. Witness said ho had Riven evidence to that effect in the Magistrate's Court when i<l flit ifyinir Sticking in connection with tin , robbery offence. The woman coiicc-iii-d wait not Mr*. Sticking*.

A decree. ui»i wan granted, to be made absolute after three month*.

SAILOR AND HIS WIFE

He had U-ft his wife in 1017 by mutual agreement and had not seen her since, said Walter Alexander McCarthy (Mr. Stevens), an ex-Navy man. who applied for divorce from Kileen McCarthy. They were married at Portsmouth in lOOi; and had two children, naid the petitioner. He testified tliat on returning from a crnirtp in 1!»14 he found hie wife had been living with another man, and there wa« trouble. Ho went off to the China station from 1!»14 to 1017. and on his return he made the separation agreement with his wife, which had continued ever since. He came to the Xew Zealand stHtion and completed his Navy service in 1!»27, since when he had lived in Auckland.

A decree niei granted.

HUSBAND LEFT HOME.

After they had been married for 22 yeare and had two children, her husband, when on a trip to Australia laet year, wrote to her saying he was not going to return and live with her, said Edna Beatrice Earl Philip (Mr. Baker), in petitioning for a decree requiring her husband Harold Ernest Philip to make restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner said her husband had returned to Auckland, hut had not come back to the home, despite her entreaties. She knew of no reason why he should not return home. Kcepomlent. was ordered to jrrant the petitioner conjugal rijrhts, within 14 days of service of the order. MUTUAL SEPARATION. On the ground of mutual separation for more than three years, the following petitions were granted:—Minnie Ann Bowdler (Mr. Xeumegen), v. Victor Vincent Henry Joseph Bowdler; William John Wernh'ain (Mr. Rish worth), V. Mary Charlotte Wernham; Thomas Jackson (Mr. McLiver), v. Mary Ann Jackson; Phyllis Mnry Dolan (Mr. ("hiirton), v. Arthur William Patrick Dolan: Dorothy Marion Brook (Mr. Singer), v. Arthur Edwin Henry Brook; Zeelia Marjory Goodall (Mr. Singer), v. Hubert William Goodall. I ;— FAILURE TO COMPLY. Decrees nisi were granted as follows on the ground of failure to comply with orders for restitution of conjugal rights: Ronald William Rua Nichols (Mr. Fraer), v. Rita May Nichols; Daniel (jrunn McLeod (Mr. Fraer), v. Ada McLeod; Eric George Webb (Mr. Singer>, v. Doris May Webb; Eirene Alice Wigpins (Mr. Singer), v. Harold Norman Wiggins. SOMETHING SHE HEARD. Spineo Brothers (Mr. Dirkson) petitioned for divorce from her husband. Charles Edward Henry Brothers, on tlie ground of hi* adultery. They were married at Avondale in 1015 and had two children, but in October, 193r>, they separated by mutual agreement. In consequence of something she heard, she went to Tatiranjra in June, 1937, and found that her husband was living there with another woman, who wae known as Mrs. Brothers. Jamee Gilpin, of Tanranga, testified that respondent lived at ht* house from December, 1036, to May, 1037. with a woman who was known as Mrs. Brothers, but who n<it the petitioner. A decree was granted. REFUSED TO RETURN. "Petitioner seems to have done everything to induce his wife to return, and lias shown her every kindness," said his Honor in granting a decree nisi to Erneet William Strahan (Mr. Addieon), who petitioned againet Lillian Meline Beatrice Strahan on the ground of desertion. The parties were married in March, 1032, and there wae one child. In 1936 the respondent had left petitioner. At various times he had tried to get her to return, but she had refused. EARLY SEPARATION. Supporting a petition for a decree ordering her husband to make restitu- i tion of conjugal rights. Alice Elaine Pavey (Mr. Ctailand) said that in September, HW. she married Frank Leslii , Davey. At the time they were both working and it was arranged that ehe should continue in employment until Christmas, and go to live with her parents, in company with her husband. She went with her parents as arranged, but her husband did not joia her and

had not since complied with her repeated requests to live with her and make a home for her.

An order for the restitution of conjugal rights within 14 daye after service was granted.

.Ja»;ies Humphreys (Mr. Dickson) was jL'iiiii'ed an order against his -wife. Mnriei de Montaigne Humphreys, for the restitution of conjugal rights, i NO CO RESPONDENT NAMED. Two years after tlieir in IM~> lie and liis wife hud diffi'ieiice.-; and si.urei-.l 1(i si'pnr.ite. stilted Wanvii l.lifti.ii Paul (Mr. Tinner) in applying for flivoi-e from hie wife, Phvilis Clara Paul. This agreement was kept, but in February of this year petitioner heard in consequence of which he discovered that a still-born child had beep buried, and hi* wife was certified as the mother. He interviewed her about this, but she declined to make any ndniN.sion about the child's paternitv, und he was unable to name a eolespoiident.

Sfhvvn ('. Clark, .solicitor, produced a written admission of misconduct by the w i h>.

A decree nisi was granted