UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 125, 27 May 1920, Page 8

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

PETITIONS IN DIVORCE

UNDEFENDED CASES.

A number of undefended divorce petitions were-heard by His Honour Sir John Salmond to-day in the Divoroe Couit.

CONNOR v. CONNOR.'

Charlotte Mildred Connor sought a dissolution of her marriage with William Connor, on the ground of desertion. Mr. ? P. W. Jackson appeared for petitioner. Evidence -was given by the plaintiff that* she was married in April, 1905, and suffered by the respondent's drunken and violent habits. In 1913 she left him on account of his conduct, being afraid of his threats. He had- nevar" since contributed towards her support, but she had sent him money. Further evidence was given by Mrs. W. Stanton as to the petitioner's earning her living as a housekeeper. His Honour adjourned the case for further corroborative! evidence as to the respondent's character and conduct. LAWS v. LAWS. Kathleen Laws applied for a divorce from Henry Edward Laws on the grounds of desertion. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for petitioner. Evidence was given by petitioner as to the respondent's cruelty which, led to her leaving him. She waa granted separation and maintenance in August, 1911, but respondent never paid her anything, and went to gaol instead. She had never seen him since. Evidence was also given by Mrs. Maud Dunn as to the maintenance of petitioner by her "own industry. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs against the respondent' on the lowest scale. MONK v. MONK. Walter Ponsonby Monk sought dissolution of his marriage with Louisa Bethia Monk, on the ground of desertion. Mr. -A. .W. Blair appeared for petitioner, who stated that the marriage took place in 1910. A child was born in January, 1918, Jjut the respondent' took no interest in it after it reached the age of seven months, and put it out to board. When witness went into camp, respondent >■ went away, and took up work in hotels. EVer since 1917 his wife had refused to cohabit with him. At pjesent she was in Sydney. He had made repeated efforts to get her. to resume marital relationship, but she had refused. She had said she was tired of him.' . ■ . ■ After evidence had been given by the assistant-manager of the New Zea-lander Hotel, as to the occupation of separate rooms by the petitioner and respondent, his Honour adjourned the case to this afternoon, when the rest of the evidence will be taken in camera. ALLBRAND v. ALLBRAND. Theodore Allbrand sought dissolution of marriage with Alice Louisa Allbrand, on the ground of her adultery with Thomas Kennedy. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for petitioner. From the evidence of the petitioner, it appealed that the parties were married in 1910. and separated in' 1912, on account of respondent's drunken habits. Petitioner j went to Australia in 1913, and served j with the A.I.F. during the .war. On his | return to New Zealand in October, ! 1918, he was arrested for failing- to main- j tain the respondent. He found his wife living with Kennedy in Mitchelltown ns man and wife. He had seen his wife at the Hospital last Sunday, understanding that she was dying, but it was a j false alarm. His wife- had gone through, ; the form of marriage with Thomas Ken- , uedy in 1913. and was subsequently pro- ■ scented for bigamy. The case was dis- ' missed by the Magistrate. Evidence was given by ex-Detective Mason as to the case.' ■•,:•..-■ . -.',■■ . .-..'.: :•: \ His Honour granted a decree ilist,-to bo made absolute in three .months. Costs against co-respondent were refused, on the ground that his marriage had been bona fide. ' . MACKENZIE v. MACKENZIE. Desertion was the ground of a petition by Margaret Mary Mackenzie for dis- j solution of her marriage with Ernest | Mackenzie. .; Mr. R. R. Burridge appeared for petitioner, who, in evidence, said she had married respondent in Pal.morston North in May, 1914. From three weeks' after the marriage respondent had ceased to support her, and she had lived as a maternity nurse. ' The respondent was peculiar in his character, and there was insanity in the family. Petitioner had endeavoured to get him to maintain her, but the police had been months tracing him. Altogether she had only got 30s from him through the Court. On 31st May, 1919, the respondent was sentenced to two years' reformatory treatment at' Auckland, and was still in gaol. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted, with costs against respondent.. STYLES v. STYLES. On the ground of adultery, Elsie Franklyn Styles sought. a ,divorce from Arthur James., Lawrie Styles. . Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for the petitioner, whose evidence was to the effect that the marriage took place in 1912. The respondent went to the war in 1917. and returned in 1919, ! when his feelings seemed changed towards her. He left her, and letters found in his pockets roused suspicions. Evidence was given by Doris Henry, cashier, Grand Hotel, Palmerston North, to the effect that a. man named Styles had stayed at the hotel with another woman, not the petitioner, as man' and wife. Corroborative testimony was given by ex-Detective Mason, who said respondent had admitted to him the misconduct alleged. - His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made' absolute in three months, with costs on the lowest scale against the respondent. ■ COLNETT v. COLNETT. William Horace Colnett sought a dissolution of marriage with Violet Daisy Colnett on the ground of desertion. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for petitioner. The parties were married on 26th May, 1915, and after three months respondent left him and refused to come back. Petitioner went to the war, and came, back in 1919, when tho respondent wrote to him refusing absolutely to have anything to do with him. To his Honour: He had gone into camp a fortnight after her first leaving, him. They had no home. He had made no allotment order to his wife, and had not written to her from the .war. She was on the wharf when Jhe boat arrived from Home in March, 1919. He had | not made any attempt to speak to her on the wharf at Auckland. It was not till October last that he received, the letter dismissing him from his wife. His Honour said the case was an extraordinary and exceptional one. He would consider the question of ordering the respondent to appear. The alleged desertion was not prima facie desertion at all, or rather it was desertion by the petitioner, who had enlisted before his wife left him. Mr. Jackson : "Would your Honoonr not take an affidavit by the respondent?" His Honour : "No,, the respondent must appear. I am not going to accept as sufficient evidence of desertion that the respondent went to her mother a fortnight before petitioner went to camp. I want to see the respondent. The Court

has power to order the respondent to appear." ■ The case was adjourned sine die. EVANS v. EVANS. The adjourned case o£ Savage Corry Evans v. Jane Ann Evans, petition for divorce on the ground of desertion, was heard in camera. Mr. W. Perry appeared for the petitioner. WHITE v. WHITE. Clarence Alexander White, petitioned for dissolution of marriage with q|Hve Myrtle White on the ground of her desertion. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for the petitioner. The parties were married in April, 1914, and there was one child. Respondent left petitioner in July, 1914,- and joined a travelling circus. Corroborative evidence was given, and his Honour, granted a decree nisi on the usual terms. PREMATURE. After hearing further evidence in camera in the case of Walter P. Monk v. Louise B. Monk, his Honour decided tliEt he could not grant the petition, which he thought had been brought prematurely. DECISION RESERVED. His Honour reserved decision in the case of Savage Corry Evans v. Jane Ann Evans, a petition .for divorce on the ground of desertion. Mr. W. Perry appeared for petitioner. HELLER v. HELLER. In the case of Margaret Heller v. George Heller, desertion being the plea, his Honour granted a decree nisi, to be ' made absolute ia three months, ■ petitioner td have custody of the children. Mr. P. W. Jackson, appeared for petitioner. GOSLIN v. GOSLIN. May Goslin petitioned for a divorce from Herbert B. L. Goslin on the ground of .adultery. Mr. J. A. Scott appeared for the petitioner. (Proceeding.) •