UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 303, 16 September 1921, Page 7

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

« SOME UNDEFENDED CASES. Several undefended divorce cases were heard by His Honour Mr. Justice Sim in the Supremo Court yesterday. MOORE V. _ MOORE. Failure to comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights was alleged by George Moore (represented by Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. P. H. Putnam) against Margaret Jane Moore. After evidence had been heard a decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months. NAMES SUPPRESSED. Decrees nisi were granted in two cases where lunacy was the ground of tho petitions. Tho Judge forbade publication of tho evidence or tho names of the parties. DIEDRICH-BECH V. DIEDRICHBECH. Tho fact that her husband was an enemy alien, to wit, a Gorman national, enabled Yvonne Cleo'patra Diedrich-Bech to obtain a divorce from Richard Paul Diedrich-Bech. The petitioner said sho wns married in 1915. knowing her hueband to bo a German subject. He was born in Saxonbcrg. Mr. O’Leary (for the petitioner) elicited the information that she was the daughter of a Greek, N. Fernandos Mangris. Her husband was interned in 1917, and she wont to live with her people. The respondent could not support her and on one occasion risked her for mqney, which she refused to give. Her liusband went back to Germany in 1919. TITTER V. TITTER. Cruelty was the ground-on which Elizabeth Bertha Titter (Mr. O’Leary) askjed for dissolution of her marriage with James Titter. He was a gambler, she said, and used to illtreat her consistently. He cut her face severely on one occasion. There was a child of the marriage. She left Titter for a time and then acceded to his request to return to him, but on tho first night of the reunion lie ijltreated her brutally. A decree nisi, with custody of the child, was granted. LOVE V. LOVE. On the ground of her adultery, James Love asked for dissolution of his marriage with Elsie Love. Mr. Sievwright appeared for the petitioner, who produced an admission of guilt and a certificate proving tho birth of an illegitimate child to Mrs. Love. A decree nisi was granted. A named co-respondent was dismissed from the suit. BARNETT V. BARNETT. A similar ground was tho basis of Elsie Louisa Barnett’s suit against Herbert Barnett. Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for tho petitioner. Tho parties were married in 1909. Mrs. Barnett alleged that adultery had token place nt the Carlton Hotel, in Wellington, in April last. Later the parties separated and the respondent wns ordered to pay his-wife £1 10s. a week. He refused to answer on oath a question whether he had committed adultery. Ho had not kept up the weekly payments, and at present n warrant wns out for his arrest. Francis Henry Paul, a barman, said ho and tho respondent were sharing a room at the Carlton Hotel on April 10 last. Witness saw tho respondent bring ft woman into the room. A decree nisi was granted.