DIVORCE COURT

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 128, 27 November 1919, Page 8

DIVORCE COURT

FURTHER CASES HEARD

, The sitting of the Divorce Court was yesterday afternoon before his 'Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert '.'Stout). • ■ WIGGENS v. WIGGINS. In tho case of Pauline May Wiggins, for whom Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie . appeared, against William Henry Wiggins, •proof of the allegation that respondent had-been co-respondent in „a recent di- ' vorce suit was placed before the Court, and petitioner was granted a decree nisi. ; A TO-DAY'S OASES. ; His Honour dealt with a further ■hatch pf cases-this morning. WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS. Walter Percy Williams applied for a divorce against his wife, Essie Elsie Grace Williams, on the ground of mis- ! conduct. Mr. J. M. Dale appeared for the petitioner, who is in the railway ser- : vice, and stationed at Taihape. He went >,n. activo service in March, 1916, and 'in February of this year. He . had not seen his wife since he returned. was given, and a decree nisi .'was granted, with "cost against co-respon-dent. : ' BULLEN v. BULLEN. : Annie Anita Bullen alleged misconduct against her husband Percy S. Bullen, to whom she was married in 1911. There were three children of the marriage ; two (boys) are in a home, and petitioner .;has custody of the third (a girl). Some • .eighteen months ago respondent said he '-was tired of her, and she left him. Later ;\she heard he was misconducting himself, , ;but she went agaiu to live with him. He ■was always telling her to go, and she did '.so.' Later she returned to Wellington, •patched.her husband, and as a result, alleged misconduct with Elsie Grace Willi iams,, whose name he gave as Maud :;Sims. in a written confession. Mr. P. AV-. Jackson appeared for petitioner, who was granted a' decree nisi. BBAMLEY v. BRAMLEY. Mr. R. H. Webb appeared for Thomas ;Bram!ey, who applied for a divorce from his wife, Mary Jane Bramley, on the 'ground of misconduct. Petitioner is a at Johnsonville, and was married ■ in- 1911. They had, said petitioner, a Rodger in the house, named Barretta, who 'was working on the railway. This man icame home drunk on Saturday, the 23rd IMay, 1917, and witness told him to clear .-'out. Two days later, his wife and the man were both missing, and evidence was given that the parties had lived . together at Christchurch as man and wife. There-was no defence, and a decree nisi was granted, with costs against the co-respondent. CORKE v. CORKE. ,;," William James Corke, for whom Mr. ; S T. Neave appeared, petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Violet "Gwendoline Corke on the grounds of _• misconduct. The parties were married -•on 12th November, 1913, and lived at and Featherston. In Januarylast the respondent left petitioner and went to live with a man named M'Cann. by whom she had an illegitimate child. A decree nisi was granted, with costs '.against the co-respondent. "l WHITTA v. WHITTA. • Alfred Vivian Whitta, of Christchurch, alleged misconduct against his wife, vMabel Whitta, to whom he was married "in 1914. Mr, F. D. Sargent appeared • for petitioner, who said he went to the I: front just after the war broke out, and ;; returned in September of last year. Evi- - deuce was given as to respondent having ,"<'o-!<al)itated with a. man on Wellington:'le,rr.ace, under the. name of Mrs. Myers. 'A decree nisi was granted. '.: JAMES v. JAMES. •■■ Susan-May ■• James, for whom Mr. -Salek appeared, alleged that her husband, ..'Albert Edward James, to whom she was married at Wellington in 1901, had de- - serted her. She also alleged drunken,'ness and ill-treatment, and that as a •consequence she and her two boys had ■ been turned-out of lodgings at Taihape and they had to sleep in the school shed. --.Her husband then disappeared, and' when lie turned up in 1916 at Auckland he was •' drunk, used obscene language, and was ; taken away by the police. Since then lie had been at the front, and returned iii October, 1918, but he had ■;done nothing for her. He enlisted as a ■-single, irian. During the period of de- ■'. sertion she had been keeping herself and jher two children. His Honour granted in. decree nisi, with costs against the respondent, and custody of the children. •; ASHLEY v. ASHLEY. Catherine May Ashley, represented by .)lr. O'Leary. stated that she married ; Robert John Ashley at Walton-on-Thames ■: in November, 1916, respondent then being a member of the New Zealand Expeditionary. Forces. Her husband came back to New Zealand, and she came ten ,: months later, but they were not happy as he drank and threatened her. In ■August, 1917, she left him, and later he t admitted,that "he had been a beast." t; Evidence^that Ashley had been found -occupying a room with another woman .'was given. A decree nisi was granted. -M'CONACHY v. CONACHY. Misconduct was the ground advanced :by Margaret M'Uonachy, for whom Mr. Perry appeared, in support of her petition for a .divorce from James -David 'M'Conachy. Tho parties were married -in 1916, and in 1918 respondent left petitioner, .admitting, in a letter, that he -''had committed adultery. A decree nisi • was granted. SIBREE v. SIBREE. . Charles Sibree sought a divorce from Elizabeth Sibree. In answer to his counsel, Mr. Neave, the petitioner said the marriage took place in 1895, and ih.it his wife left him in 1911. Since then sho had been living in Tinakori-road 'with a man named Henry Wilson, by ;whom she had had a child.. A decree nisi was granted. '* ROBERTS' v. ROBERTS. Misconduct on the part of his wife, i.Lucy Martha Roberts, formed tho ground of the petition of David Albert Roberts for divorce. Mr. O'Regan re- . presented petitioner, who stated that his . wife had admitted having had illicit reflations with Michael o"Connor. Letters -in support of this' contention were pio'duced, and further verbal evidence of admissions on the pai-t of respondent was given. A decree nisi was granted. RAFFEL v. RAFFEL. ; Maggie May Raffel, for whom Mr. Jackson appeared, stated that she mar- ' ried Simon Raffel, an Assyrian store- ' keeper, in 1909 in Wellington. They lived together in Wairoa until 1914, when she loft her husband on account of the manner in which he had carried on with Maori women. Investigations had been made recently, and Raffel was found living with a Maori woman. A decree nisi was granted. INTEMPERATE WIFE. Married in 1900, in Cornwall, Richard Hamilton Philpott, for whom Mr. Jackson appeared, said that he and his wife, Beatrice Philpott, had ultimately - come to live in Auckland. . Inr 1917 ho had left hia wife on. account of her in- • temperate habits, but had made no provision for her. His wife went to To Kuiti, and, in consequence of what he heard, he sent a. detective to bring her -, hack to Auckland. Upon her return he charged, herjrith.miswnduct .which. &he

admitted, although she refused to say who was the other party. A written admission was produced and a decree nisi was granted. UNFAITHFUL HUSBAND. Misconduct was also the ground advanced by Caroline Kinniburgh, represented by Mr. M. Crombie, in support of her application for a divorce from John Herbert Kinniburgh. The marriage, petitioner stated, took place in 1899, and in 1912 her husband left her. Kinniburgh had since been living with another woman. Evidence was given that respondent was. the father of a child to which another woman gave birth, and a decree nisi was granted. DRINK AND MISCONDUCT. Augustus Henry Baggarley, of Carterton, represented by Mr. Jackson, st-ught a divorce from Lilian Winifred Baggarley on the ground of misconduct. Petitioner stated that he was married i l 1906, and that his wife left him suddenly in August of this year, coming to Wellington with two men in a motorcar. A fortnight later she returned, intoxicated, but a week later she once again came to Wellington for a fortnight. Twice before he had forgiven her for misconducting herself. Evidence was given that respondent had been seen in Wellington in September on a drinking bout with a man named Ryan, with whom she had occupied a double room in Boulcott-street.

A decree nisi was granted. ; HABITUAL DRUNKENN?»S.

Habitual drunkenness on the part of her husband, John Michael Quill, was the ground on which Ethel Maud Blanche Gertrude Quill, represented by Mr. Jackson, sought a divorce. Petitioner stated that she married Quill in 1907, and had been most unhappy, as respondent had drunk to excess, and had done no work. She had lived at Feilding, Wellington, Nelson, Auckland, and a great deal at Otaki. Ultimately Qui!? went on activo service, and since, he had come back he had been under the influence of drink whenever she had seen him. He had pawned all her jewellery, and had ill-treated her frequently. Corroborative evidence was given, and a decrese nisi was granted. (Proceeding.)