DIVORCE COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 121, 14 February 1908, Page 4

DIVORCE COURT.

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS. A sitting of tho Divo'rr.e'Court was hold bcforo His Honour Mr. .Ju'stico Button yestorday morning, when the .following, cases wero dealt -with- '' "'. '

Arthur Thomas Livermoro v. Elizabeth Livermoro; application for restitution of con-' ;jugal -rights; •Air. Wilford, for applicant. Iu his opening address...pounsel ,said that it: appeared from' the! ovidouco'that tho wohiaiv in this caso ;had married Livermoro .out of curiosity';" ' . x " His Honour: Is that, not why ..most women marry? " i • ■ ■: Mr. Wilfor'd: I don't know; I have only beon .marriod'once. Arthur Thomas "Livermoro gave evidencothat he was married <oi], December 23, 1897, and had lived at Wellington with his wifo until'August'2l, 1907, when sho left him. She was now living at Ponsonby, Auckland: Thero were no children'of .the marriage. •!, i An order was niado.for restitution of conjugal rights, to becomo 'operative in 'three weeks if respondent did not comply. .Horace' Georgo Livermoro v. Elizabeth Livormoro; application for restitution of conjugal rights; Mr. Wilford for applicant. Evidcnco was given 'that, the parties wero married on January 2,'1899, and thero.was ono child of tho .marriage, now eight yoars did. Respondent left on August 21 (with tho respondent mentioned in, tho last caso), taking tho child: She was now residing at Auckland,'and had failed to reply to letters asking her to return. ,

Counsel commented on the unusual fact that' tho parties suing for restitution in these cases wero. brothers, that-their wives wero named Elizabeth,: and-'that .both" tho respondent; .had; left at'the same timo,and wero now residing lit Ponsonby. y An'order for restitution .was mado on tho same terms ;as that mentionod .in tho last case, .j

John Eaton.Deadman v. Eliza Jano Deadman j application for restitution ofcoujugal rights; Air.: Atkinson, lor applicant; Mr'. Rerdman for Air. Hcrdman said that ho. did not intend to oppose tlio application, but merely to resist any application that might bo mado for costs. •_ Mr. Atkinson said he did "not intend ti> apply for costs. The parties, it was shown in evidence, were married in 1891, and hud lived together at Mauricovillo for fifteen, years. Tliero were eight childrori of the marriage. Respondent left her homo on September IS, 1907, and visited tho' Christcliurclr Exhibition. Since then :.shq had refused to return.—An oydor was'mado in the terms of tlio application.' William Alexander Douglas v. A'nnio' Eunice Douglas; application for restitution of conjugal rights. , Air. Wilford for petitioner Air. Hcrdman, .for tho respondent,, said his client declined to return to lier bus-' hand.—An order was made in accordanco with tho application. ' j. .' DISSOLUTION OF.MARRIAGE. Richard Muir v. -Alice Jluir; application for dissolution of marriage; All'. Wilford fqr applicant. .Petitioner gijy'o evidence, that he was married at Brisbane on: December 10, 1899. -His wifo I 'loft hiiir on\ November 30, 18D2, with their tiyo. children, and: had never returned; One morning- petitioner- went to: work, anil whpn ho rptyniqd-ho-found that respondent, 'was missing'.—A", decree' nisi was granted,, to bft madoj absojuto in .three months from date,-. .

Emberaub B.utt V. Alfred George Butt; application, for ..dissolution"! of marriage on tho ground of 'habitual(drunkenness oii tho part of respondent and' failure to maintain; Alv. Wilford for petitioner.—Petitioner gave, ovidenco.tliat slio was married to respondent on April: 27, 1897. Tliero wero two children of tho marriage. For tho past four years respondent had been -frequently drunk. Witness had been living'with her mother for about four years now, and- luvd to earn her own living. Respondent did : not contnbuto on an avorago -tiioro. than Bs. per week towards the.',.. ■ maintenance, ,of tho children. ; Other, ■'jovidonce - was-.:' given- as to the drunkenness of respondent. —

A decree nisi, to be madb absoluto in threo months, was granted, with costs against respondent' ou >tlio" lowest scale. An interim order was iiiado giving petitioner custody of tho children.. : - Saralt Barnes v. Harry Barnes; application for diyorcq on tho ground of desertion; Jlr.' Wilford for petitioner, Tho parties wcro married at Dunediii, and afterwards lived at • Oamaru and Dunediii. Petitioner . slated ' that' on March Jl, 1901, ■ respondent' left her. She obtained a maintenance order against him, but sinco March, 1901, up to the present time sho had succeeded in getting only £2 Bs./ Petitioner had no idea where respondent was.—

A decreo nisi was granted, with costs against respondent; petitioner to have tho custody of the child of tho marriago. Charles Hounslow v. Amy Cclonia Jane Coleman Hounslow; application lor dissolution of-marriago on tho grounds of desertion; Air. Dunn for petitioner.—Petitioner stated that ho was married in 1893, and that his wife left him in 1899, without known cause. Twico previously respondent had sold petitioner's furniture, spent tho proceeds, and threatened to leavo him. This occurred in Brisbane. On ono occasion petitioner met his wife in Brisbane, and sho informed him that she had gono through n form of marriage with another man. A certificate in support of this statement was put in as evidence. —A decree nisi was granted, to be made absoluto in threo months. Mr. Wilford here asked permission to draw attention to a previous ruling on tho matter of procedure before a decree lor p-wtitutuin could'ho obtained. It was in regard to tho sending of a demand couched in concdiatoiy terms for tho resumption of cohabitation, and it had been laid down that a deeiee should not be bo granted unless such liemaud had been made and disobeyed, except under special circumstanccs. He pointed out tno necessity for tliis. His Honour said ho had taken such circumstances as mentioned by Mr. Wilford into consideration m his procedure, but ho expected this would bo his last sitting in divorce, and it was theretoro no uso for him to say what, ho was going to do in the futuro in tho matter.

ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT. Harriet Eliza Adsott v. Thomas Adsott; application for dissolution of marriage. ■ Mr Moran (Masterton), for the petitioner said that tho parties were married in' IBAS in England. Respondent had been in the habit of ill-treating his wife while under the influence of drink. They came tp Wellington in 1902 and since then four applications by petitioner for separation had been granted. Each time, however, petitioner -had yielded to her husband's entreaties and had gone bank to him. • .' , Petitioner said that during the first week of their .marriage her. husband had blackened her eye. He said if sho would come out to-New Zealand lie would turn over a now leaf, but ho ill-treated her coming out. Wliilo living at Feilding he used to grip her by the throat and say "what ho would do if.it were not for the law. Separation orders -had. liccn granted but sho ,hud returned 'to'him on promises of, amendment. Ho had. frequently thrown bricks t and hot wator at her. Four children had, been born of the marriage'but only ono was alive. Hilda Peddersen, for eighteen or nineteon months employed in. tho.petitioner's laundry, testified as to respondent s insobriety and illtreatment,' of..his wife. , Cross-oxamined by respondent witness admitted receiving n notico to quit- from respondent, but she wasnot engaged^hy him. She did not "havo her knife, into him." _ Emerilda May Bowden, employed by petitioner in 190-t and 1908; described respondent as a drunkard. Witness had onco to call tho police in as an act of precaution, on petitioner's behalf.' • ..

Frank Shorter, brass-boy oil the Arahura, who hid. lodged at Mi's.'.Adsett'ji houso, deposed that Adsett had once poured hot water over his wife's face, and had thrbwn, bricks at hor. , ..' .

Cross-examined by. Adsett, witness, denied that ho had beon caught, at .the till in the shop.' • _ : ■ . ■ . . i . Respondent, giving qvidonco oil his own behalf, denied that ho was an habitual drunkard.' lie had been drunk perhaps a couple of times a year. , His 'wife had "done" him out of bis business in the Excelsior.laujuli-y. Ho had novor ill-treated; her. Witness went into -a ! rambling statement' of- his wrongs. He called Patrick J. Fiimegan, Ernest Hafst.ron and two other witnesses; who deposed that respondent was not a:drunkard. 1 '' Replying to his Honour, Adsett said that he had not been able to prevent the issuo of four separation orders because lie had not tho money to employ counsel.- His wifo had the money'and would not allow'him any.;

j lTifi Honour referred to tlio ovideiico lis con-' ttadiotory and commented; on tlio fact that threo times out of four respondent, 'on/his own admission, had allowed. separation; cases to go against him in tlilj courts'without' disputing theih.Ho' could liridetstand -this' oc- ■ purring onco but not'tliree' times.' Tho .witbosses for- tho'"petitioner' l lmd : iive'd : at thoir ihotise 4 and all- gavo direct - and imnust'akrtblo' 1 evidence i- whereas the respondent's .witiiessts had'not tlio samo opporturiitics'of noticing his life.. His Honour was'bound to believe tlio (SvideneO of the. petitioner: that vespohdont had frequently ill-treatpd hor"and that, ho was :an habitual drunkard. He would make tho order for a decree 'nisi, to bo mado absoluto in three months'. . The custody of tho child would; be givon to tho mother. v No order was made for.costs. . This concluded tho'divorce calendar.