CAT BLAMED

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 152, 29 June 1945, Page 6

CAT BLAMED

UNHAPPY MARRIAGE

MORE UNDEFENDED DIVORCES

-■ An explanation that a cat came between himself and his wife was made by William Frederick Bracewell, farmer, of Waihi (Mr. H, L. Boughton), in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Fair to-day, in asking for divorce,from Edith Mary Bracewell.

They were married, he said, in April, 1940, and had no children. Some weeks after marriage the wife brought a cat to the. house. He already had three cats there, and objected to them being in the house at night, but the wife declined to have her cat put out. It used to go into the bedroom and on the bed at nights, and though he agreed to the cat staying in the house he objected to it in the bed. He had a dispute with the wife over this, and she ordered two single beds, putting them in different rooms, occupying one herself. He told her she was making herself ridiculous over the cat, and eventually she left him and refused to return. He took a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, but it was dismissed.

To his Honor petitioner said he had written to the wife asking her to return, and had not paid her maintenance. After other evidence had been heard a decree nisi was granted. Adultery Admitted Petitioning for divorce from William Mercer Robins, his wife, Mary Edwards Robins (Mr. Bone) said her marriage was quite a happy one so far as she was concerned for seven years until, in November 1943, her husband told her he had been unfaithful and disclosed that another woman was going to be the mother of his child. He brought the woman to the home for a visit, and both confessed to adultery.

Her husband then left and lived with the other woman. He continued to pay petitioner maintenance, first at £3 and latterly at £2 a week. After hearing evidence of respondent's continued association with the other woman, his Honor granted a decree nisi. Other petitions granted on the grounds of adultery were: lan George Taylor (Mr. Tong) v. Williamina Mia* Taylor and Robert Paul Langen. Unusual Situation An unusual situation was revealed when Leslie Frank Herbert Gerken (Mr. A. K. Turner) petitioned for divorce from Edna May Gerken. Counsel said this was the second divorce petition filed by Gerken, who was married in September, 1938 and had two children. In 1943 the wife left home and petitioner applied for and got a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, and following failure of the wife to return he filed papers for divorce, but she then came back to him. They remained together for six months when she again went away. Again the husband got a restitution decree, following this with a divorce petition. On this occasion she twice visited him at night for a matter of an hour but declined to live with him though he delayed the divorce action in the hope she would relent.

After counsel had made legal submissions that the isolated marital relations did not constitute .compliance with the order to return, his Honor reserved his decision. Short Marriage "This was a very short marriage; you were only married in January last," said Mr. Justice Cornish, when Reginald Charles Shaare (Mr. Dickson) applied for an order of restitution against May Winnifred Shaare. Petitioner said he had advertised for a housekeeper and engaged the respondent. Four weeks later they were married and lived at Putaruru. In less than three months respondent made three holiday trips to Auckland, and on the last occasion he followed later. When he met her she said she did not want to live with him any more and refused to join him. An order was made for respondent to return to petitioner within 28 days.

On Other Grounds Separation for more than three years was the ground on which decrees were granted in the petitions: Norma May Williams (Mr. Bramwell) v. Harry Harvey Williams; Rosie Morrison (Mr. Townshend) v. Norman Edward Morrison; Thelma Winifred Handcock (Mr. Townshend) v. James Alexander Handcock; Clive Holt (Mr. Fortune) v. Esme Mabel Holt; Mina Wilson (Mr. Dickson) v. Alan Robert Wilson; Nellie Cornwall (Mr. Dickson) v. John Cornwall.

Petitions granted on the ground of failure to comply with decrees directing restitution of conjugal rights were:—Violet May Surgenor (Mr. Fortune) v. James Arthur Surgenor; Marjorie Ramoana Tinman (Mr. Fortune) v. William John Tinman; James Smith (Mr. Dickson) v. Ruth Elizabeth Smith; William Lloyd Lewis (Mr. Dickson) v. Iyy Merle Lewis; Gordon Rhodes Clough (Mr. Dickson) v. Stella June Clough; Hazel May Ford (Mr. Dickson) v. Lloyd Edgar Ford; Doreen Coral McKinnon (Mr. Dickson) v. Trevor Richard McKinnon.

On the ground of desertion decrees nisi were granted in the following cases:—Alexander Black (Mr, Dickson) v. Agnes Main Black; Harriet Bailey (Mr. Dickson) v. Elga Percy Bailey; Phyllis Myrtle Rolander (Mr. Dickson) v. Stanley Roy Rolander. t Restitution Orders

Orders for the respondents to return to petitioners were made in the following cases:—lris May Maiden (Mr. Dickson) v. Edward James Maiden; John Gordon Smith (Mr. Dickson) v. Eileen May Smith; Albert Leslie Sarchett (Mr. Alderton) v. Delacene Lilian Sarchett (28 days); John Henry Moody (Mr. Robinson) v. Muriel Elsie Moody (28 days); Nolan Taylor Rafferty (Mr. Townshend) v. Joyce Mildred Rafferty (28 days).