DOMESTIC DISCORD

Evening Post, Volume XCII, Issue 42, 18 August 1916, Page 8

DOMESTIC DISCORD

PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE

At the Supreme Court this morning his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards heard a number of petitions for dissolution of

marriages,

A BIGAMOI^S WIFE.

The first case taken was that of James Morton Davidson v. Rhoda Randall Davidson, a petition on the ground of misconduct. Stewart Gordon Mason was joined as co-respondent.

Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the petitioner, who said, that ho was a trumpeter attached to the 17th Reinforcements, and about to leave New Zealand. The parties. were married in June of 1912, and in August, 1915, were living at Petone. Petitioner had occasion to complain to his wife in regard to her going about with soldiers and constant visits to Trent-ham. His wife then left him, and he next saw her in the Magistrate's Court at Wellington, where she and the co-respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy. His wife was scut to the Salvation Army Home. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lowest scale. ANXIOUS TO BE FREE. Simon John GulJery sought a dissolution of his marriage with Elizabeth Ann Gullery on the. ground of misconduct. Cyril Francis .Renner was joined as corespondent. Mr. Watson appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. P. W. Jackson represented the respondent, but not, as he explained, for "the purpose of denying the allegations of the petitioner. ' The latter said he was a farmer, and had lived for some years with his wife after their marriage in 1901. He ceased to live with his wife owing to her im'scom duct with the co-respondent, and he did not defend- an application made by her for separation and maintenance, as he was "glad 'to be rid of her at any price." The order had recently been discharged by the Magistrate on account of the fact that respondent was living with the co-respondent as "Mrs. Kenner." After hearing the evidence, his Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. DESERTION AND MISCONDUCT. Misconduct was the ground on which William 'Henry Richards (Mr. Petherick) relied in his petition against his ' wife, Ada Georgina Richards. The petitioner gave evidence as to his wife having left him in 1910, and as to her misbehaviour .with, a man named Campbell. ; "" A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted. CONSIDERATION DEFERRED. Mr. M. F. Luckie, who appeared, for Lalla. Elizabeth Glover in her petition against Lewis Glover, mentioned that the latter was the co-respondent in the case of Stevens -v. Stevens, heard before his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking Sn May. last.",.. At that time the jury had found , that both respondent and corespondent had been guilty of misconduct. , After hearing the evidence tendered his Honour reserved consideration on a point as to its sufficiency. TWO ATTEMPTS FAIL. " Margaret Ellen Ashdown, for whom Mr. .W. Fv .Ward appeared, alleged, cruelty and'desertion, in seeking a dissolution 'of her marriage with Edward George Leo Ashdown.' She stated that she was married in 1908, and lived for three months with her husband. Then she had to obtain a separation order from him on account of his cruelty. Nine months later she went back to her husband, who had expressed sorrow for his past cruelty. Again, however, he had illtreated her, and she had to get another, separation order. Since 1910 she had not seen her husband. A decree nisi, to be absolute in three months, was granted. A MISSING WIFE. Arthur Davis Benge, a fanner from Kaitoke, near Upper Hutt, petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Catherine Pearl Benge. Isaac William Barnett, a casual employee of the petitioner's, was joined as co-respondent. .Mr. 0.. C. Mazengarb appeared for the petitioner. A neighbour of the petitioner gave evidence as to the corispondent having told him of his relations with the respondent. The petitioner stated that some months ago, on the day co-respondent was due to leave his employ, the respondent also left, leaving her wedding ring in the candlestick and her marriage certificate on the table. Since .then he had not seen the respondent, and efforts to trace her had failed.

His Honour expressed doubt as to whether there was sufficient evidence against the respondent, and said he would take time to consider the matter.