BREAKING THE BONDS

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 121, 22 May 1920, Page 5

BREAKING THE BONDS

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES

A number of undefended divorce cases were heard by his Honour Sir John Salmond at the Supreme Court this morning:— ADULTERY ADMITTED. Cyril Coombes Austin Bsrtlett, for whom Mi. Jackson appeared, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Lillian Elizabeth Bnrtlett, on the grounds of adultery. The petitioner, a member of the N.Z. Permanent Staff, employed at Trent-ham Camp, stated that hi was married tc the respondent in England in i9C9. They came to New Zealand a year later, and there were three children of the marriage. In March, 191S, when they were residing in Carterbou. his wife joined a theatrical company, and he went to- Australia, putting the children into a boarding school. On returnins to ew Zealand a few months later, he saw his wife, who refused to return to him,' stating that she was living with another man. She also wrote him to that effect. He did not know what had become of his wife since, and he was not aware of the name of the co-respondent. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute in three months, the petitioner being given custody of the children. DRUNKENNESS AND CRUELTY. Mabel Taylor, for whom Mr. Jackson appeared, asked for a divorce from William- Gee Taylor, on the ground of habitual drunkenness and cruelty on the part >of respondent. Petitioner stated' that she was married to respondent-. in' England in- February, ISOI, and left for New Zealand three weeks later, her husband having secured an engagement as a veterinary surgeon under the New Zealand Government. They had resided at various places in New Zealand sinc°, and there were two children of the marriage. In 1911, while they were living at Karori, her husband commenced drinking heavily,. and became cruel and abusive to her. He had knocked her down and kicked her. His. cruel treat- I ment continued. He left for the front with the Main Body, and on returning, eighteen months later, continued drinking heavily. Respondent left her in August, 1913, and had since resigned his appointment under the Government. Corroborative evidence was given as to the respondent's habits. A decree nisi was granted, to be, made absolute in three months. "A MAN OF STRAW/ 1 Fred Esric Homann, represented by Mr. Jackson, applied for a dissolution of his ma-rriage with Alice Mary Homann on the ground of her adultery with Henry William Chirm, who was cited as co-respondent. Counsel stated that the petitioner had originally sought damages, but had abandoned the claim on account of the co-resipondent being "a man of straw." The petitioner deposed that he was a Main Body man/ and married the respondent in England in ,1916. He returned to New Zealand in 1917, and when residing in Wellington some time later he surprised respondent in her relations with co-respondent, and told her to go. Respondent and Chirm were now living together. There was one child of the marriage, of which witness had charge. Further evidence having been given, his Honour granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months. ANOTHER WAR CASE.Violet ?'ernandos. was granted a dissolution of her marriage with George Henry Fernandas, on the ground of adultery. The. parties were married in October, 1905, and there wera three children of the marriage. The petitioner, who was represented by Mr. Jackson, stated that respondent; went to the war in 1914, and on his return five years later letters for him were delivered to her, showing that he had been carrying on with women in Ensrland. Respondent, when taxed, admitted" that this was so, •and that he was the father of a child in England. A SECOND WOMAN IN THE CASE. Sophia Jane Wolfreys- (Mr. Jackson) also complained of unfaithfulness on the part of her husband, Arthur Joseph Wolfreys, and prayed for a dissolution of her marriage. She stated that sho was married in 1901, and had lived with "him at various places in New Zealand since.Seven years ago her husband left her for another woman with whom ho had continued to live. His Honour granted the petition with costs on the lowest scale against the respondent.