BROKEN TIES

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 137, 6 December 1918, Page 8

BROKEN TIES

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES SEVERAL DECREES GRANTED His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking presided at a sitting of the Divorce Court held to-day. Several undefended cases were heard. ■ CROSS v. CROSS. Dinah Cross, for whom Mr. P, W. Jackson appeared, petitioned for a divorce from Horace Montague Cross, on the ground of desertion. The parties w«re married .on 16th February, 1907. They lived at Petone for five yean. "Respondent wag a commercial traveller, and for a while was stationed at Christchurch. Later he came North with the expressed intention, of going to Auckland to take another position. He went to Auckland, but petitioner stated in her evidence that since May, 1912, she had heard nothing of her husband. He had not supported her, and she believed he went to Sydney. Mr. Jackson stated that respondent wae in financial difficulties with his employers when he went away. • His Honour: I imagined that. After hearing further evidence, hi* Honour granted a decree nisi^ on tho usual terms, with costs £15 15s against respondent. M'PHEE v. M'PHEE. ; Drunkenness and cruelty were the grounds mentioned in a petition lodged by Jane M'Phee against Norman M'Phee. Petitioner stated that the par r ties were married- at Timaru on, sth May, 1886. They resided at Timaru and Oamani and, during the last.26 years, in Wellington. Her husband had been drinking during the last 18 years, and she had had to keep herself and the children. Witness had not seen her husband for five or six years. . His Honour (to Mr. Jackson, who represented petitioner) : Why. did not you include desertion as one of the grounds? The man might have reformed. If this is the evidence I doubt whether I can make an order.

Mt.'Jackson : I am afraid I have no evidence, as to the last four years. When Mr. Jackson asked for permission to amend the petition his Honour said .that respondent would have ■ to be re-served. . It was agreed to hear the evidence in the meantime. Petitioner gave evidence of cruelty. "I had to leave him because I could not put up with it," she said. Corroborative evidence was given,' and his Honour reserved his decision. M'COY v. M'COY. An allegation of misconduct was made by Emily Jane M'Coy against her husband, William Frank M'Coy, and a I divorce was sought by the former on this ground. Mr. H. F. O'Leary represented • petitioner, ■ who was in arried on - 16th ' August, .1911. ' Thero were no children.'" ---—'■•-—-■ „-■•—.--. A Magistrate's order adjudging respondent: the putative father of an unborn ■ illegitimate child was produced; also a later order fixing the amount of the maintenance. . . . : A decree nisi was granted, and costs (£ls) and disbursements were allowed. GROVES v. GROVES; ! ■ Eva Phoebe Groves applied for a divorce from Charles William 'Groves. Mr._H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for petitioner, stated that respondent was now serving a term of imprisonment for the crime of bigamy. The parties were married on 23rd July, 1915, but ,they lived together in Wellington for three weeks only. Respondent then got into trouble over something and had to leave. There was no issue of the marriage. After ' DeteetiveLSergeant Andrews gave \evidence, his Honour granted a de- j cree nisi,, to be made absolute in three months. Costs were allowed. ' i FRASER v. FRASER. j Mr. H. F. O'LeaTy appeared for | George Fraser, who petitioned for a divorce from Cecilia Maud Fraser on thfa ground of adultery. The parties werts j married in December, 1908, and there were two children. On Ist April, 1916, petitioner left with the New Zealand Forces on active service and returned to I the Dominion on 18th March, 1918. While he' was away his wife was well | provided for. She received nearly £4 per week. On his return he lived again with his wife, who later confessed to ! wrong-doing. The co-respondent was on active service. ' A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Mr. Jackson "appeared on behalf of the respondent Jin regard to the custody of the children. This matter was held over. M'GILL v. M'GILL. On the ground of habitual drunkenness, Emma .M'Gill sought a divorce from Daniel M'Gill, formerly an engineer at the railway workshops, Petone. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for petitioner, who stated that she was married on 16th December, 1902, and there were two children. Respondent, ac.cordirtg to petitioner, commenced to drink about three months after their marriage, and had been drinking ever since. He was very cruel to her while under the influence of liquor, and while at Cross Creek she frequently had the protection of her neighbours. Corroborative evidence was given by two witnesses. His Honour said he would reserve decision until Monday. In such cases there was a difficulty. If the wife continued to live with her huuband, did she not condone his ,offence, no matter what that offence was? . (Proceeding.) . !