DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 272, 11 August 1920, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT

UNDEFENDED CASES A HEAVY LIST

A heavy list of undefondyl suits came before yesterday's sitting of tlio Divorco Court, over which the Chiof Justico (Sir Itobert Stout) presided. The Court sat throughout tho day, and when it' roso seventeen cases'had been disposed of. GIIEENFIEIiD V. GREENFIELD. Henry Charles Greenfield, for whom 31r. A. W. Blair appeared, asked for ft dissolution of his marriage with Margaret Greenfield on tho ground of desertion. 'Iho parties were married at Nowtown in October, 1913. There were two children of- the marriage. Respondent left liira in 1915 in consequence of a letter which petitioner discovered, and slio had not returned since. ,Petitioner had continued to support tho children, and they had never left- his caro. A decree nisi- was granted, to be moved absolute at tho end of three months. BOSS T. EOSS. Desertion was also nllcsrel by. Walter Boss in support of his suit against; MinolaM'Alpino Ro«s. Mr. A. W. Blair represented tho petitioner. Tho parlies wero married at Johnsonville in November, 1905, and two children woro born. In March, 1913, petitioner, who was it com-' mercial traveller, returned from o. trip to find his house locked up and his vifo gone. Since then he had soon nothing of her, but ho understood slio was in Sydney. She had taken the chiklnm with her, A decree nisi was granted.

. NAISMITH V. NAISMI'rn. Charles Naismith, who was represented by Mr. fl. F. O'Lcary, sought a divorcs from Agnes Naismith, alleging that she had committed adult-cry with Sandford Henry Lawlor, who was joined as a corespondent. The parties were married in March, 1906,' and there were no children. Petitioner parted from his wife 14 months ago because she li'ad boon drinking. Later oh lie discovered that slio was living with another man in the city. Tile usual order was granted, with costs against tlio corespondent on tho lowest scale.

FITZSIMJTONS V. FITZSIMMONS. Horace Michael Connell Fitzsimmons (Mr. O'Leary) wag granted a divorce from ivy Fitzsimmons on the ground of her misconduct with Alfred Douglas Theodore Woodley. The parties wore married in March, ISOS, but on account of respondent's conduct they had not lived together for ihe past four years. Sine# separation respondent had admitted that «ho was living as another man's wife. FERGUSON' T. I'EBGTJSON-. Alice Annie Ferguson petitioned for n dissolution of her marriage with William Duncan Ferguson .on tho ground of adultery. Tho usual order was nade. Mr. H. F. O'Leary represented the petitiono*. .. TALBOT V. TAMOT. William Tenewest Talbot asked that his marriage with Florence Talbot ho dissolved, on the ground of adultery.. Petitioner, who was represented by Mr. H. F. von Haart, said that he was married to re- . epondfint in England in 1904. Subsequently they came to Nffw Zealand. Petitioner went to 'the front from Now Zealand in 1514, and returned in February, 1921), when he found that his wife was living with another man (now dead) in Wellington. Petitioner took the two children away from respondent, and ho had not lived with lier since. A decree nisi'was granted. MAISEY V. MAISEY. Drunkenness and cruelty - were the {rounds alleged bjf Mary Ann Maisey in support of hor petition for divorce from Charles James Jtaisey. Mr. ][. F. O'Leary appeared for petitioner. A decree nisi . was' granted along with an Interim order for custody- of tho children, with costs against respondent according to teals. MOORE V. MOOKE In the case of Ivy Catherine Moore (for whom Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared) against Robert Dawson Moore, desertion was sue;®.i«"fully n'eaded. The parties were martied (it ,Sydney in March, 1912. Some four (months after the marriago petitioner came to New Zealand to attend liev sister's wedding. The arrangement' with respondent was that he was to follow petitioner to New Zealand. He had never dono so, and had not .contributed to her support. The usual order was made. CHARD V. CHARD. Alfred. Henry Chard asked that his marriage, with Nellie Chard be dissolved, on 'h® ground of her admitted misconduct with Samuel Stock, who vr*is joined as a co-respondent. Petitioner,; for: whom Atci. J. A. Scott appeared,-, said that he' wasmarried to respondent in' 1912, 'and there was one'child of tho marriag*. Misconduct took place whllo potitionnr, who waßi Beaman, was away at sea, in consettuence of which the parties separated, itespondent was now living with co-respond-ent at Auckland, and by him she had had two cnildren. His Honour granted a decree nisi. No order was asked for touching the child of the marriage, who is living with respondent. LAURENCE V. LAURENCE. Desertion was the ground of the petition or Myrtle Smith Laurence against John Herbert Laurence. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for petitioner, who stated that since her marriage in 1914 respondent had left her on three occasions. Tho last time lie left her was in 191G, when lie sailed for America, stating that ho would'make a home for her there. He had failed to carry out tins promise, and she had lost ; granU 0 Th ° usual order waa

. • WELSFOIiD V. WELSFORD. Alleging that respondent had deserted fc,„ Hc r nry Robert Velsford sought' a v w t 10 ? hcc Louisa Wolsford. Mr. 'ni,. on for petitioner. land ?n i™ wc j e ~m a™ ei Nbvt Zoanfn,» ™ ' • d thoro were 6il children sLhlm W ll, 111 October, 1914, rewi?h W «■ "JL 6 ' takin|{ the two Birls lived tOTiWr" tl 'i i tn tho P art 'es had not lived together. A decreo nisi was granted. GIIBATHEAD V. GREATHIiAD. Otaki ai wnc caso ,. I . lar y Grcathrad, of utam, was the petitioner, alleeinir that the respondent, Ernest Frederiff Greatwhn committed adultory. Petitioner ed ho tff t K Sented by , M l' O'Leary, statmarriaep «hi,w e i 6,Kl ! t °' llil,lrfi » °f the .. ruage, which took placo in 1898 Knmn he°£fs I,e fT imt A wSS wSn/& A decree "isi was eranted with interim custody of the children. . BULLIFF V. BULLIFF ' sHKSfir© ChHstmas mo" ai

_ NISBET V. JfXSIIET. LAIVTON V. IIAWTOIV 1?I6, and there ml 01 e cl u unM 13? , St ? tod W«»0" - ™iu ANDREWS V. ANDIIEWS. Idarcne Berenice Eupheinia Andrews ask. ?) , ' Jr tlifisoiution of Iter marriage with Bertie Raymond Keith Andrews, on tlu< ground of adultery, Mr. J. A. Scott ai>reared for the petitioner, wlio said that the marrjjige toon place In May, 1914, inerc was one child of thp inarriatre. Her husband had left her and had been cuiltv of misconduct A decree nisi was printed petitioner to have the custody of the child' the lowest St' ™ JOHNSON Y. JOHNSON. The last case taken was that of Sarah Ann Johnson v. Alexander Kobert JohnS? n - -Petitioner, who was represented by Ml-. ULuary, gave evidence that she was warned to responiieuv in ltos, and there was one child of the marriage. Respondent was addicted to drink, and in 1910 he averted her, siuce when she had earned B? r "d" ■" JK ' e usua ' order was