LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 287, 28 August 1908, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. . UNDEFENDED CASES. TEN MARRIAGES DISSOLVED. ; A number of undefended divorco cases' were taken by Mr. Justice Cooper yester-', day. GILLESPIE v. GILLESPIE. Elonor Susan Gillesitio sought a dissolution of her marriage with Thomas Gillespio on the ground of his adultery with Lilian Douglas. Mr. Beere appeared, on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Herdman for respondent, but only in regard to tho question of costs: Petitioner gave evidenco that sho was married to, respondent in November, 1894.; Thero were ,110 children of tho marriage. A deed of separation was drawn up between' them in July, 1895. Sho had never seen her! husband since, but sho had hoard he was', living with another woman. Sho was not! claiming maintenance nor alimony. Rawdon St. John Beere, solicitor, deposed) that ho went to Tapanui, Otago, where respondent was residing, for the purpose of obtaining evidenco with respect to tho case. Respondent told him that tho' case was a very unfortunate one. Ho introduced him to the woman with whom ho was living, calling her "Mrs. Gillespie." Sho appeared to be living with him as his wife. His Honour said that there was a difficulty in the case. Under tho statute, petitioner' could now claim n divorco on tho ground ofadultery al<)ne. Prior to the passing of the Act of 1898, a petitioner was bound to prove, cruelty or desertion in addition to adultery.; Assuming that tho relationship alleged be-! tween 'respomlsnt and the other womancommenced beforo 1898, tho question wasj whether tho case came within the Act of; 1898 and subsequent Acts. Mr. Justico' Denniston had -held that where the matrimonial offenco was committed prior to the Act of 1898 coming into force, it could not be'set up as a ground for divorco in proceedings taken subsequent to tho passing of tho Act.

In reply to a question put by his Honour, petitioner stated' that she did not know when'the relationship alleged between respondent and tho other woman commenced. Mr. Herdman mentioned that tho other woman was originally respondent's housekeeper. His Honour said that it would be'advisable! to obtain evidence as to the earliest date when tho alleged relationship commenced. If it were established that the relationship began since the passing of tho Act of 1898 thero would bo no difficulty in tho making of the decree. He agreed entirely with the judgment of Mr. Justico Denniston in tho cajo quoted. Tho present caso might, however, bo found to bo distinguishable from it. He would not say that without tho evidence in question the Court would have no jurisdiction in tho present case, but in that event it would be necessary for him to .go carefully into tho matter. After tho luncheon adjournment Mr. Herdman intimated that respondent had signed a statement to tho effect that the woman! in question had not come to live with .him until between December, 1899, and March, 1900. His Honour said that the statement got over the difficulty. Ho granted' a decreo nisi, to ho made absolute in throe months, and allowed £20 costs plu3 Court fees against respondent.• '

PETITION ON GROUND OF INSANITY. Tho first case under the Act of last session, which makes insanity for ten years continuously within tho twelve years immediately preceding 'the commencement of tho proceedings'a.ground for. divorce, was then'heard. The Court- made; an order directing that the ntmes of the' parties should not bo published. .. t ' Mr. Luckie appeared on behalf of tho petitioner, and Mr. Myers for tho SolicitorGeneral,"" whb had "bsen appointed guardian in respect of the respondent. Petitioner (sworn) stated that tho marriage took' place at' Wellington in March, 1889. Respondent, who had no 1 private means, was committed to an asylum thirteen years' ago, and'had 'remained either in Mount View Asylum or Porirua Asylum over since. Tliore wero three children of tho marriago, two of whom were living. Dr. Gray Has'sell, medical ■ superintendent at Porirua .Asylum,- stated that respondent was suffering from chronic dementia. It was unlikoly that ho. would recover.

His Honour said that ho was satisfied that the case, for petitioner .was established. Respondent, who was suffering from chronic dementia, which took the form, of religious mania, was committed to Mount View Asylum in 1895, and had remained thero until 1898, when he was transferred to Porirua Asylum, of which institution ho had ever since been an inmate. The possibility of recovery was exceedingly remote. Thero had been nothing in the conduct of the petitioner to contribute to the lunacy. The Court must pronounce a decree nisi, tj be made absolute at the expiration of six months. It would also make an order granting tho interim custody of the younger child, who was under tho of eighteen years, to petitioner until application was made for decree absolute, when tho matter would bo finally disposed of. A further order was mado directing petitioner to pay tho costs of the Solicitor-General as had been agreed upon.

INTERESTING .LEGAL QUESTION. Helen Ritchie Ball petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Alfred Ball on .the • ground of desertion. Petitioner, who was represented by Mr. Herdman, gave evidence that sho was married to respondent at Nelson in September, 1878. There wore five children of tho marriage. Sho and ler husband had lived together in Nelson, Wellington,. and Fox ton. About fourteen years ago, whilst they were residing at Foxton, respondent deserted .her. She had not _ heard _ot him since; it was believed, by his relatives that he was dead. His Honour pointed out that a question similar to that which arose in the previous caso would require to be carefully _ Considered. Tho offence alleged originated prior to tho passing of the Act of 1898, when desertion alono was not sufficient ground for tho granting of;a decree. ■ Mr. Herdman said that if the Court-could not grant a decree for desertion in cases in which tho offence had commenced before the Act of 1898 came into operation and had continued after the passing of the Act for a longer period than live years, it ; would deprive a number of persons of the benefits of the provisions of the Act of 1898 relating to desertion. - . His Honour 'said he would have to carefully go into the question. It seemed to him that the reasonable construction to put : on tho section was that if the desertion had commenced before tho Act camo into operation and had continued for five years and upwards afterwards a petitioner- would be entitled to a'decree. Evidence was then given by Samuel Howan, butcher, Newtown, and Aniiio Elizabeth Ball, daughter of the petitioner. .His. Honour, said that the. desertion had | been proVe'd. He would take timo to consider tho point which arose 'in the -case.

, . . , . . HARLEN v. HARLEN. ; Josoiih Edward Harlen, sometimo called :Joseph Henry Harlen, sought the dissolution of his marriage with Mary E. E. Harlen, 011 tho ground' of her adultery with Ralph Taylor. : Petitioner, who was represented by Mr. Bolton, stated that lie was married to rei'spondent in July, 1902.' Respondent left ,him iii Deoember, 1906. She'took 0110 child [with her, and 'left tho, dtlier'. • He, had reicbivcd four letters from-her. In-one she .'stilted that' lie liad : pleiitj of 1 ground upon iwhich to obtain V divdrcc.' 'A man- named Ralph. Taylor worked 'for him prior to the idato' when Jiis wife left him-. • ' • j • Evidence was given that respondent had said that' she had-been'divorced from petitioner, and had married, Taylor, and that tiioro a child of tha mnrringo, She further statod that petitioner had proof of adul-

tery, and that if lio wanted a divorce ho would li.ive to pay for it. His Honour granted a decree nisi to bo made absolute in three months. No order was made as to costs. FURBY y. FURBY. Walter Samuel Furby applied for tho dis-' solution of his marriage with Lily Furby on tlie ground of her adultery with Peter B.illantyne. Mr. Wilford appeared in support of the petition. Petitioner, in evidence, stated that he was married to respondent on July 18, 1900.! There was one child of the marriage. On; December 11, 1903, respondent went away; with co-respondent. She had written stating that she knew she had done wrong. A decree nisi was granted to be made, absolute at tho end of three months. Costs on the lowest scale as in an undefended suit were allowed against co-respondent.

DEADMAN v. DEADMAN. John Eaton Deadman requested tho Court to dissolve his marriage with Eliza J. Deadmail, on the ground of failure to comply with an.order for tho restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner, who was represented' by Mr. Atkinson, stated that ho was a farmer residing at Morrinsville. His wife had failed to comply with an order for ths restitution of conjugal rights. His Honour granted a decree nisi; to be made absolute at the expiration of- six months; interim custody of the children to be given to tho petitioner until application for decree absolute, when the matter would be finally settled.

STAFFORD v. STAFFORD. Desertion for five years and upwards was the ground on which George Stafford asked that his marriage with Bertha Stafford should be dissolved. Mr. Wilford appeared on behalf of . tho petitioner. Petitioner, who is a settler, deposed that he was married to respondent at Picton in January, 1895. There was one child of tho marriage. In March, 1901, when they were living in Tinakori Road, Wellington, respondent left him. At tho beginning of tho present year, netitioner heard that sho was living in the Wanganui district with a man who was acquainted with her' prior to tho desertion. AVhen respondent went away sho took the child with her. Robt. Sinclair and D. A. Ewye also gave evidence. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted. CAMPBELL v. CAMPBELL. Mary Campbell applied for the dissolution of her marriage with Rata Campbell on the ground of : desortion for five years and upwards. Mr. Wilford appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner deposed that she was married to respondent in September, 1901. Thorp were no children of tho marriage. Respondent left her six years ago last April. Evidenco was also given by petitioner's father arid mother. His Honour said that desertion for five yens without roasonablo cause seemed to havo been clearly proved. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, would be granted, and costs on tho lowest scale wero allowed.

FOREMAN v. FOREMAN. , Jessie Foreman asked the court to dissolve her marriage- with William Thomas Foreman. The ground of the application was desertion. Petitioner,' who was represented by Mr. Hindmarsh, stated that sho was married to respondent at Christchurch in 1899. Thoy lived together subsequently in Wellington and in Tasmania. Two years after tho marriage, whilst tliey wero residing in Tasmania, respondent deserted her. : Her husband was a portrait painter and a canvasser. In October, 1903, she applied for and was granted a maintenance order. Respondent only paid for two or threo weeks. She had not seen nor heard of him since. " Tho further hearing of the case was adjourned, in order that corroborativo evidenco might be obtained. ■ PEARSON v. PEARSON. ' Charles Henry Pearson sought the dissolution of his marriago with Clara Jane Pearson on tho ground of her adultory with George Brewer. . Mr. Wilford appeared in support. Petitioner, who is a farmer, deposed that he was married to respondent in December, 1902, at Auckland. There, was one child of tho marriage. At tho latter' end of 1806 respondent went away with co-respondent. Petitioner had since seen respondent at Wauganui, whero sho was living with co-respondoiit. A letter admitting adultery was put in. A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absoluto in threo months. •

Co-respondent was ordered to pay costs on tho lowest scale, as in an undefended ease. BARROW v. BARROW. Habitual drunkenness, failure to maintain, and cruelty were the grounds on which Elizabeth Barrow asked tho court to dissolve her marriage with William Barrow. ■ . Petitioner, who was represented by Mr. Wilford, stated that she was married to respondent in March, 1893. There were six children of tho marriage. Respondent; who was addicted to drink, had been cruel to her. Evidenco was given in support of petitioner's! .statements. > His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lowest scale.

SUIT TO ANNUL A MARRIAGE. Evelyn Ellen M'Leiman or White brought a suit for the nullity of her: marriage with John White on the ground that respondent's previous marriage had hot been finally, dissolved at the time of the marriage in question. Petitioner deposed that she was married to respondent on February 7, 1902. Her husband had. been .married before. The Registrar of the Court produced the order relating'to the decree absolute in connection .with respondent's former, marriage. It was dated February 21, 1902. Mr. Wilford, in evidence, stated, that he had asked respondent how it came about that he married petitioner before the decree absolute in regard to his former marriage had been granted. Respondent, in reply, said ho understood that his former wife had taken out the decree absolute. His Honour _said, that his present opinion was that petitioner was entitled to a decree. Beforo making the pronouricefnent he would, however, look up authorities on tho subject.

CASSIDY v. CASSIDY. Hannah Cassidy petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Harold Cassidy on the ground of adultery, habitual cruelty, and failure to. maintain. The petitioner, who was represented by Mr. Wilford, said she was married to respondent at the Registrar's offico at Wellington, on July 3, 190 G. About two or three months afterwards ho admitted having committed adultery with a woman whoso namo he would not divulge. Prior to the marriage petitioner had known respondent only a month'or six weeks. Respondent had married her for her money. Petitioner did not know where respondent now 'resided. ', ', Beatrice Lane, daughter of the petitioner, also gave evidence. His Honour: Petitioner' made a very foolish marriage. She married a man much youngerthan herself, and the results wero what might be expected in the circumstances. A decree nisi would bo granted, to bo made absolute in threo months, with costs oil tho lowest scale. : '

ORDER FOR RESTITUTION OF CONI. JTJGAL RIGHTS. ■ J Caroline Baker requested ' f ho court to make an order against Chas: Henry Baker for the restitution of conjugal rights. Mr. Wilford appeared in support of tho petition. Patitionor otatod that she was married to respondent at the Registrar's office, Welling-

ton, on April 30, . 1906. There were no children of tho marriage. They had lived at Wellington, at Waikanae, and then at Wellington again. On March 20, 1908, respondent loft her without cause, and had not returned. Evidence was also given by Elizabeth M'Menamin. His Honour made an order requiring respondent to return to his wife within one month, and to pay costs on the lowest scale.