IN DIVORCE

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 34, 9 August 1921, Page 8

IN DIVORCE

UNDEFENDED CASES

A number-of applications in divorce, in whicii no defence was entered, were heard by Mr. Justice Sim at the Supreme Court to-day.

, ALLEGED DESERTION. Alfred Mitchell claimed the restitution of conjugal rights from Eileen Robertson Mitchell, and his Honour issued an order for restitution, under which the respondent is to return within six weeks of the service'of the order.

Emma Ibell, who was married to Robert Ibell at Ash^urton. in 1899, claimed divorce on the ground that he had- deserted her. Mr. Treadwell appeared for the- petitioner, who stated that her husband left her only six months after the marriage. They had lived together again for short periods, but not since 1908. He'had several times been imprisoned and had now. been declared an habitual criminal. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in. three months.

Mary Elizabeth Bond, for whom Mr. Anderson appeared, had been deserted since 1915. The decree nisi was granted in the usual form, with costs, and an order for custody of the two children. Donald Ailwyn Stiles claimed the restitution of conjugal rights by Emily Elsie Stiles, to whom he was married in 1917. Mr. 0; R. Beere appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Anderson for the respondent. The petitioner stated that, he went away with the'llth Reinforcements. He returned in 1919, and she told' him she was not inclined to live with him again, and had not done so. An i order for restitution was made, to be complied with in 14 days after service of the decree on the respondent.

A petition for divorce was made by Eliza Jane Trembath, the respondent being John Trembath, on the grounds of desertion and also of a separation order. Mr. Evans appeared for jhe petitioner, who stated that she was married in 1899 and had two children. She obtained a separation order in Chiistchurch in 1910. It was still in force, and she had never seen her husband or received maintenance from him since. A decree nisi was ordered subject to proof that the service of the w,rit on the'respondent was in order.

: Another petition for an order for res- : titution of conjufral rights was the case of^Caleb Jesse Maslin (tor whom Mr. Beere appeared) v. Ethel Mary Maslin. Mr. Beere said that the case was a peculiar one. The petitioner some time ago sued for divorce on the ground of. adultery,, button the first trial the jury disagreed, and at' the second found against the petitioner. The Chief Justice, .in a hearing of an application by the co-respondent for his costs, stated his that the petitioner had 'grounds for his suspicion; the jury's decision, Mr. Beere said,, was due to medical consideration's. The petitioner had 'Continued ■to support his wife until she left' "Wellington' jsome time ago. The petitioner, in evidence, said that since his wifo left him lie had asked her to return to him,- but she had refused 1. A decree for restitution was granted, to be compjied with within', fourteen days of service.- .;■"'. '■ . ■ • A MUTUAL ARRANGEMENT. An agreement to- separate immediately after marriage ;was .. described in the 1 .case-Alice Marjorie Butterworth v. Edwin" Patrick Butterwortb/, and Mr. Jackson, for,the petitioner,, claimed a decree under section 4 'of the Matrimonial .Causes Act,, 1920, which applies when a mutual agreement has resulted in separation extending more than three years. His Honour said that.it would be necessary to, prove that at the date the petition was filed the respondent was domiciled in New Zealand, and the case was adjourned to enable Mr. Jackson- to obtain proof on this point. "HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS. William Green, for whom Mr. Salek claimed divorce^from Hannah Green,- on the ground that she had been for four years an habitual drunkard, and was unfit to carry out her domestic duties. The petitioner stated that his wife, to whom he was married iii 1906, was an inmate of the Pakatoa Home for inebriates, and the five children were in various institutions. He had left New Zealand with the Main Body, N.Z.E.F. in i 914, and returned in 19] 6. His wife received 10s a day, pius £'+ a week from his employers. > When he returned he found his good home reduced to two rooms, and he found she was addicted to drink. He had exhausted means for preventing 'her getting 'alcohol; and she had Seen sent to Pakatoa through,. tße action of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children. Evidence wa% given by Dr. Kemp that the respondent was habitually addicted to alcohol, and unfit to have the care of her children. After hearing further evidence, his Honour granted a decree nisi, and said the question of maintenance should be raised when the. motion for a decree absolute was made at the end of three months.' An- interim order for the ens-, toay of the children by the petitioner was made. • ■;■•• • GERMAN PARENTAGE. Stewart Philip Kiethmuller sought divorce from. Eleanor Annie Riethmuller on the ground of alleged desertion. Mr. Neave, who appeared for the petitioner, said that there was a counter-ajlegation of desertion of the respondent by the petitioner, and his Honour said it would be necessary to disprove that allegation/ Mr. Neave said that the real cause of the trouble was that \ the petitioner was of German natipnality. The parties weremarried in September, 1514j, in' Queensland, but separated as lie result of quarrels, and the petitioner came to New. 'Zealand. Later, in' 1917, tho petitioner suggested to his wife that she should come to New Zealand, but she refused. Evidence was : given. by tho petitioner, who said that he and his' wife lived happily together for only a few weeks. This was on account of his German parentage, which he "got from all sides." They lived with his wife's family till April, 1916, when his wife left the place. Her father wrote to him and asked him to leave the house, and he did so. A reconciliation was attempted, but his wife 'again refused to live with him because he was a German, and for the samp reason ;she refused to accept maintenance from In September-, 1916, he came to New Zealand, and subsequent attempts to induce his wife to come to New Zealand to live with him had been futile. He had never treated his wife cruelly, and the only ffl cause of the trouble was that his narents were German. Mr. Neave said in reply to his Honour that no corroborative evidence was available here, beyond the correspondence put, in. Good reason for the quarrel had, however,. been shown, and the separation 'was proved. His Honour said that the r letter in which the respondent refused to return was ' sufficient) covroboratidn ' in this case. He granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. NO JURISDICTION. '■"« Desertion by her husband , was the ■ground)for "application for the divorce of . Lamina' Stewart from James Colin Stewart: -.Mr. .Neave appeared for tho petitioner;-.- ■• > ' . Mrs. Stewart Said she was married to the respondent in January, 1917. She had lived in New Zealand since 1915. Tho respondent,: who was employed by the Alaska Packers' Association, camo to New Zealand to marry her, and returned

to San Franqisco. , She had never heard from him since.

His Honour remarked that both parties came from Lerwick. .Neither party was domiciled in New Zealand, and the Court had no jurisdiction.

Mr. Neave said that he relied on the statute which gave relief to a. wife if, at -the time she was deserted, she was domiciled in New Zealand.

His Honour : "As soon as she married the man, his domicile became her domicile. She lost her New, Zealand domicile, and he was never domiciled in New Zealand." Mr. Neave : "There may be some difficulty about the;matter. " '. ." His Honour: "I' see no difficulty at all about it; it is perfectly plain. The petition must be dismissed." ■

(Proceeding.)