SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2477, 2 June 1915, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES

Several undefended divorce cases were dealt with by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon. Eliza Jaae Smith petitioned for dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Harold Smith on the ground of desertion. Mr. T. M. Wilford, who appeared for the petitioner, called evidence to show that the parties were married in Wellington in 1891), and afterwards lived in this City. The desertion dated, from 190S, and the whereabouts of the respondent were not now known. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be' moved absolute in three months. The petitioner was granted interim custody of the children 'of the marriage, and was awarded costs on tliie lowest scale.

Desertion was also the ground on which Neil Harmichael sought divorce from Annie Christina Carmichael, to whom he had been married on August 2, 1908, at Dannevirke. Seven months after the marriage respondent left lier husband and had not since returned to him. His Honour granted the usual dccree. Alice Magdalene King, for whom Mr. T. Al. Wilfcrd appeared, asked that lier marriage with John Thomas King should be dissolved on the ground that respondent had deserted her since November, 1307. The marriage had taken place at Gisborne on March 29, 1892, and there wore several children, who were living with their mother. A decree nisi was granted with costs on the lowest scale. Petitioner was granted interim custody of the children.

Misconduct was the ground of the petition of Henrietta Harriett Hathaway. She was married to Llewellyn Roland Hathaway on August SO, 1905, and now sought divorce on the ground of ier husband's miscondiuct with one Mrs. Smith. Corroborative evidence having been Rendered. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be moved to be made absolute in three months. Petitioner, for whom Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared, was granted interim custody of the child of the marriage, and was awarded costs on the lowest scale.

A decree nisi was al6o granted in the ease of Lelia Igea Fairs v. Athol Faire. rhe marriage took place at Wanganui in October, 190S, and the petitioner ,'had been deserted by her husband the following year. Mr. T. M. : Wilford appeared for the petitioner, who was allowed costs on the lowesi scale.

In the case of Kate Imrie t.'William James Crichton Imrie, the petition for divorce was lodged on the jjround of desertion. Mr. T. M. Wilford, who appeared for the petitioner, called evidence to show that after the marriage at Temuka in 1886 the parties lived together at Oamaru Wellington, and Dinedin. Eespondent left his wife in 1905 and had not since contributed anything to her support or to the support of the children. A decree nisi was granted, with costs. A defence had been filed, but was afterwards abandoned in the case of Albert Henry Macaulcy v. Charlotte Macau ley and Guiseppe Greco. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the petitioner, whose marriage with the respondent had taken place at Wellington in 1910. Misconduct had been admitted, and His Honour granted a decree nisi, with costs against the corespondent. OTHER BUSINESS. A BUILDING SOCIETY'S FUNDS. In tho Supreme Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir llobert Stout), hearing of evidence was concluded in the case in which the plaintiff whs the Colonial Co-operatiVo Building Society of Wellington, a duly incorporated building society having its chief offico in Victoria Street, Wellington, and the defendant, was John Crewcs, secretary, of Wellington. 'Mr. Kennedy appeared for the society, while Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for John Crewes. The olaim was for ,£9ll, made up of various sums of monoy alleged to nave been received by Creweß (secretary of the society until June 1914) on terms requiring him to v account fof them to the society, but not accounted for or paid over to the society. Fuller particulars of the claim and the defence (a denial of misappropriation by Crewes) were published last week. After the defendant had given his evidence yesterday, His Honour said he would take time to consider the form of judgment. What he would have to do would bo to make a decree in favour of the plaintiff society to get the accounts stated. The only point to be settled was whether, from the time the defendant received leave of absence until he resumed duty he was liable. As to tho other periods, it could not be suggested that he was not liable. JUDGMENT RESERVED. An important question in the estate of the late William Mitchell, of Mitchelltown, was before His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman in the Supreme CoUrt yesterday, when Mrs. O'Neill, one of deceased's children, sought an order directing the Public Trustee upon a principle ot salrage to pay out of the capital of the estate thi expenditure which she had been compelled' to incur ' to prevent the destruction or depreciation of the settled property. Mr. E. G. Jellico<s appeared for. Mrs. O'Neill, while Mr. J. W. Macdonald, solicitor for the Public Trust Office, appeared for the Public Trustes.. After hearing argument, His Honour reserved judgment. AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION. His Honour Mr, Justice Chapman heard a rather unusual application at the Supreme Court yesterday. One of the members of the Expeditionary Force desires to bo married to a young lady who is only eighteen years of age, and iv'ho therefore cannot marry without the consent of her parents. Unfortunately both lier father and mother are inmates of mental hospitals. The Marriage Act provides that in such a case a minor may apply to the Supreme Court for the consent of a Judge in lieu of the parent's consent. After hearing Mr. Jlazengarb as counssl ,for the petitioner, His Honour made a decree declaring the proposed marriage to be a proper one, remarking that from the papers filed the prospective bride appeared to be quite capable of looking after herself and of exercising a wise choice.