DIVORCE COURT UNDEFENDED CASES

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 117, 19 May 1914, Page 8

DIVORCE COURT UNDEFENDED CASES

A 1 number of undefended cases in Which applications for dissolution of martiage were heard to-day before liis Hon{mr Mr. Justice Hosking. Allan W. T. Hamilton, for whom Mr. Kirkcaldie appeared, applied for a divorce from Ruby W. Hamilton, Sydney iL'owick being joined as co-respondent. After hearing evidence his Honour granted a decree nisi with costs, and custody of the children. , Lucy C. Oxspring sought a divorce from (George A. Oxspring on the double grounds of habitual drunkenness and ipersistent cruelty. The petitioner, for jvhom Mr. Wilford appeared, said that ehe had been married to the respondent since 1905. In tho past ten years Hie, iirespondent had been an habitual drunkard, and on very many occasions she had !<httd to fetch him from hotels. He had 3ost every billet he had had, through Wrink. The petitioner stated that the , average money received from her husband was 8s or 10s a week, and she had hmaintained herself and her children by likeeping a. boardinghouse. A decree nisi, ,to be made absolute m three months, was granted, with custody of the children, and costs against the respondent. Desertion for live years was made the grounds of an application by 1 Charlotte Couzens, represented by Mr. T. M. Wiliord, for a divorce from Ernest R. C'ouzens. Petitioner said that she was married to respondent in May, 1907, and lived with him in Feilding and Blenheim, i Respondent, who was a cattle buyer, had disappeared _in December, 1907. Petitioner had since supported herself as a dressmaker. A decree nisi, to be made- absolute in three months, Was granted. Custody of the one child was granted to the mother, with costs on the highest scale. * Samuel R. Vittce, who was represented fey Mii T. M« Wilford, sued for a divorce from Ann Jean Vince, on the grounds of adultery, Thomas H. Fern being cited as co-respondent. The petitioner stated that he was married m July, 1906, and Jived with his wife in Wellington. In 1912 his wife admitted misconduct with Fern, who was a lodger. Petitioner had fcad his suspicions aroused the Christmas before, when his wife refused to go camping with him at Plimmerton, till i?ern -was allowed to accompany them. On their return to Wellington he accused the co-respondent' of misbehaviour, and said that if ho had been doing wrong, be would have to go. Fern replied : ?«lh, I will ask Mrs. Vince, and if she says I have-not to go, I will not go." Petitioner then taxed the respondent, (who admitted his charge, and said that she preferred the co-respondent. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Costs on the lowest scale were granted against the to- respondent. . David M'Farlane, a trimmer, applied (for a divorce from Mary M'Farlane on .the ground of desertion. Mr. T. M. tWilford appeared for the petitioner, kvho said he was married in March, 1901. SThere were no children. In July, 1903, pis wife deserted him and had never jdome back j and she had never asked any maintenance, She went away during his absence, giving no reasons, flhere had never been 'any quarrels, but fihe thonghfc him "too slow." She was father a gay lady, liking the chanv Ipagne of life. On one occasion, six [months after the separation, he saw her, (and tried to get her to return ; 4 but she itold him she hafced the sight of him. "His Honour granted a decree nisi, to f>e made absolute in three months. A DEPARTED SPIRIT. Mary Ann Thew (Mr. Wilford) asked /the Court to dissolve her marriage with [Hugh Beattie Thew, on the grounds of 'desertion. They had been married for *many years, in 1909, when her husband suddenly went away. The whole trouble was that he became a spiritualist. Mr. Wilford : That doesn't mean he Vwas an habitual drunkard? lie was a 'spiritualist— saw spooks and things? Witness : Yes ; and after that he /never- cared anything for me or his 'liome. - Mr. Wilford : His thoughts went from love to spirits? — Yes. All you can say is that he had disappeared ? — 'Yes. - He is a departed spirit? — Yes. Since lier desertion, the petitioner said, she "had maintained herself as a tailoress. His Honour : When he disappeared, did you enquire of the spiritualistic circle he belonged to to find out where he was?— No, your Honour. I don't 'believe in them. His Honour : Oh, I don't mean the 'apmts. I mean the people.— No, I did \not ask them. His Honour : Did ho ever take you to •.any of' the seances? — Yes, now and aga^n. Thomas King gave corroborative evidence, and a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with custody ,of tho infant children, was granted. MARRIED WHEN YOUNG. . William Ernest Mill, a driver, whose | wife, Beatrice J. Mill, lives in Mcland has never lived in > Now -Zealand, asked for divorce on the igrounds of desertion. Mr. H. F. . O'Leary appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner said he had been married since 1900, and had lived in Mcl- ; bourne. One day, in 1906, lie went out ;,to work in the morning, leaving his wife 'in bed. When he returned she had - gone. She had at times refused to take money from liim, and he had left Melbourne because she had tormented him •by endeavouring to have him dismissed from his employment. He did not tell , her he was coming to New Zealand, but , she was afterwards told his address. It ,was not true, as the respondent alleged, that he had deserted her first. To his Honour : He and his wife were ''very young when they were married. 'At the beginning of their married life lie had taken a house, and gave her the - money to pay off the instalments for, it j but she did not pay it over, and he lost tho house. After that both of them lived with the respondent's mother for a, year, and after that with his mother. They had never been happy. Since ho ■ came to New Zealand he had never written to his wife or heard from her. Mary Ann Mill, the petitioner's mother, gave evidence as to the sudden departure of the respondent from her house, where the couple were then living. They had never been together • since. The two were constantly quarrel- • ling, and she thought they were just as well apart. His Honour said it was very difficult to say which of the couple had deserted the other. The petitioner had made no attempt to get his wife back. _ He would consult authorities before giving bis decision, and the case would be adjourned u> the next sitting in divorce. DESERTION. On the grounds of constructive desertion, David Milligan sought a divorce from Augusta Massey M. Milligan. Mr. , hi. A. Atkinson appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. A. A. S. Menteith for the respondent. As ■ a preliminary, on the application of Mr. Menteith, an order for security for costs for the respondent was granted without opposition. Mi*. jfWtldnson claimed that the "constructive desertion" began not later than 9th March, 1909, when the parties were <on a voyage to England. The respond- * ent met a man on the steamer, and she was attracted by him. She told the petitioner that she had made a, vow never t'.to Ijllow, him a husband's rights again.

It was not suggested that there had been any misconduct. The petitioner stated that he married the respondent in January, 1903, and lived with her till 1909 in Wellington, I when they went to England. They had been happy till then ; uut on the voyage they became estranged, owing to her attachment to a fellow-passenger with j whom he thought she spent too much j time. ne implored them to stop meeting ; but later his wife told him, in the j cabin, that she had decided to deny him his , privileges as a, husband. They continued in this estrangement throughout the voyage, and the petitioner returned to New Zealand before his wife. At Sydney he received a letter from his wife, offering to let bygones be bygones if he would do the same ; and this offer he accepted. He met her in Sydney, but was Very cbolly received. She was not satisfied with Sydney, where there was nothing to interest "her, and asked him to let her go back to London, where she could "ma.p out a career in something that appealed to her." She mentioned the stage, and told him he might as well j let her go, as she would be no use to ' him. This he concluded meant that she would not be as a wife to him. He had declined to listen to these appeals, and did his best to make his wife happy, in ithe hope that she would settle down. Every means he could adopt had been followed to eifect a reconciliation, but in vain. Later she asked for an allowance so that she could follow out a career, and at fast she went a.way to Auckland and Sydney, and wrote ultimately that she had received an 'engagement with J. C. Williamson's Ben Hur Company. The, case was temporarily adjourned to enable counsel to produce correspondence to be put in as evidence. After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Atkinson handed in a large amount of correspondence, consisting chiefly of letters from Mrs. Milligan to her mother, lately deceased. ' Mr. Atkinson said that the evidence of the letters showed clearly that Mrs. Milligan had made up her mind not to live with petitioner' as his wife. This constituted legal 'desertion ; and it was shown in the letters that the respondent understood fully the consequences of what she was doing, and was determined to get her freedom in this way. She referred time after time, 1^ said; to the petitioner in terms of the highest respect. His Honour reserved his decision, to enable him to read and consider the letters 5 and he ordered a petition for alimony to stand over till then also. | A SUDDEN DEPARTURE. Application for a divorce by Grace Isabel M'Leod/ the respondent being William James M'Lepd, was made en the grounds of desertion. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the petitioner, who said that her husband had deserted her in July, 1908. She had had to go into the Hospital. He called once, but was not allowed to see her; and she never saw him again. When she cams out he had left. He was a commercial traveller. It tvas a complete surprise to find that ho had gone ; for she had had no intimation of his intpntion, and had no idea where he had gone. She had not the slightest idea- where he was now. Ever since then she had maintained herself. When she came out of Hospital, she received information from the police that two or three warrants for the respondent's arrest had been is- i sued. Kathleen Walker gave corroborative evidence. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was ordered.