UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 48, 20 August 1917, Page 8

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE

A number of undefended divorce cases were dealt with by his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court to-day. PARTED BY 1 MUTUAL CONSENT. The first petition was that of Cecilia Mary Stewart, who sought a dissolution of her marriage with Henry George Stewart. In evidence, she said they were married in 1895 at Marton, and there were two children of the marriage. Eight years ago they parted by mutual consent, he promising to pay her £1 a week, but he had never paid anything at all to her, and had only given one of the children 10s. She kept herself and the children by means of housekeeping and keeping boarders. Some twelve months ago he had come to the house and had stayed there—merely as a boarder—for a clay. It was only for the sake of the girls that she allowed him to come to the house. He paid for his board while staying at the house. Some argument took place as to the meaning of desertion. Mr. T. M. Wilford, who appeared for the petitioner, referred to the Act of 1913, claiming that if a couple separate by mutual consent and a husband fails for a period of five years and upwards to provide for the maintenance if his wife, he is guilty of desertion—constructive desertion. The two daughters of the petitioner corroborated her evidence, as. also did ail ex-boarder of hers named George Stewart —no relation. A decree nisi, with costs, was granted. A SHORT MARRIED LIFE. Married in August of 1905 and parted from her husband in January of 1906, was the experience of Ethel Elizabeth. Turnbull, who sought a, dissolution of her marriage with John Turnbull. Owing, it was alleged, to his drunken habits and threatening behaviour she left him. They parted by mutual consent, and he failed to carry out a promise to maintain her. She had not since heard from him, and had earned her own living as a barmaid ever since. A decree nisi to be made absolute in three months, was granted. MISCONDUCT ALLEGED. William George Clark, manufacturing confectioner, in reply to his counsel, Mr. T. M. Wilford, gave some details of the undue intimacy of his wife, Annie Clark, with a butcher named Norman Clout. His attention was first drawn to the affair by Clout's wife and mother-in-law. His wife used to go out at nights motor riding with Clout, and sometimes would not arrive home until the early hours of the morning. He remonstrated with her, but she continued to go out, and subseqently she admitted misconduct with Clout. He left her, and Clout's wife left him, and so far as he knew his wife was now living with Clout. She told witness that she could not give Clout up, and advised him to get a divorce. Having heard evidence in eorroboration, his Honour granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months, with costs against the co-respondent. A. WIFE'S PETITION. Evelina Ethel Thompson (Mr. T. M. Wilford) alleged adultery against her husband, AVatson W. Thompson, with a woman of Christchurch. The parties were married at Lyttelton in 1911, and had one child. Petitioner detailed admissions by her husband and the woman. Since February, she said, she had left her husband, and he was paying her 25s per week.

A decree nisi was granited, with costs, against the respondent, interim custody of the child being granted to the petitioner.