DIVORCE CASES

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 35, 10 August 1921, Page 9

DIVORCE CASES

INFIDELITY AND DESERTION

FURTHER UNDEFENDED PLEAS.

Mr. Justice Sim, presiding at the Supreme Court yesterday, dealt with a number of undefended divorce cases in addition to those reported,in The Post yesterday.

Dortea Christina Jorgensen sought a divorce on the ground of the adultery of Peter Christian Jorgensen. Mrs. Jorgensen, who said that she had three children, suspected her husband in 1919, when be began visiting a Mrs. Pretty, who, with her husband, was living in a tent nearby. In March, 1919, he left the petitioner at Masterton. An inquiry agent stated that the respondent was co-respondent in the divorce case, Pretty v. Pretty, and gave an account of Jorgensen's association with Mrs. Pretty. A decree nisi was granted, with costs against the respondent.

. In the case George Andrew M'Chesney y. Janet Furness M'Chesney, the grounds for the application were alleged adultery, William Thomas Saiinders being 'named as co-respondent. Mr. Kennedy appeared for the petitioner, who stated that he was married at Wellington in 1911 and subsequently went to Invercargill. His'wife returned to Wellington, and in 1913 he obtained a separation order. In October, 1916, he enlisted in the N.Z.E.F., and left New Zealand in. April, 1917. He returned in 1919, and went to Invercargill, but had only within the list two or three months learnt where she was. James Miller, clerk of the Magistrate's Court at Masterton, stated" that Mrsr M'Chesney, who was a domestic servant, had sued Saunders for maintenance of a child; and Saunders, though he denied paternity, admitted his intimacy with her. A decree nisi was granted on the ground of adultery, with costs against the corespondent.

■ Charles William E. C. S. Igglesden (for whom Mr. Evans appeared) sought divorce from Geraldine Hilda M. Iggfcsden, oh the ground of adultery, Patrick Fitzgerald being named 'as co-respon-dent. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted, with costs against the co-respondent. William Horace Comett, for whom Mr. Jackson appeared, sued for a decree of divorce from Daisy Colnett on the igiound of non-compliance with an order ,for restitution of conjugal righte. The petitioner stated that he was married in 1915. He had obtained,a decree for irestitution, but she had not returned to him. There were no children. A decree nisi was granted.

Charles Scott brought action against Isabella Scott for restitution of conjugal rights. Thei,petitioner stated that he was married to the respondent in June, •1920, and his wife left him in April, 1921, and went to the Britannia Hotel ias a barmaid. She had refueed to return to him except for a few days. The decree for restitution was issued, with an order for compliance within fourteen days of service. Separation, under an order, for more than three years was the ground of the application for divorce in the case of Susan Moran v. William Frederick Moran. Mr. Watson led the case. The petitioner stated that she obtained a separation order in April, 1918, at Wellington, with an order for maintenance. The Court records, produced by J. T. Bishop, who showed th« entry of th© maintenance order, but the reference to a separation order was struck out. His Honour said the case must stand over till the.discrepancy was cleared up. In tho case, Blanch Clark v. Edward Cornwall Clark, adultery ■ was alleged. The petitioner, for whom Mr; Watson appeared, described having 1 witnessed' her ■ husband in circumstances that pointed to the offence charged. The respondent was made co-respondent in a divorce case (Walker v. Walkecr), in which a decree absolute was made last year. After hearing corroborative evid-ance, his Honour granted a decree nisi, to be niadle 'absolute in three months, tibe respondent- to pay costs. ■ , liUas Ellen Oldham submitted desertion as the ground for a, petition of dirrorce from Ernest Ralph Old'ham. Mr LucWe appeared for the petitioner. The parties were married in Manchester in 1886. Mrs. Oldham stated that for some time her husband was -employed as a fitter and^.boilermaker by the Colonial Sugar Company in Fiji, and she lived in Auckland. He came to see her in Auckland. In 1915 or 1916 he gave up the employment in the Mijijds, and came to Auckland, but afterwards said he was sick of New Zealand, and was going back to Fiji. He went away, but her efforts to trace him to Fiji or elsewhere failed*. She saw him subsequently in New South Wales, having made a special trip for' the purpose. He was now in Wellington, and she had seen him on Ist August. She had had no money from him since 1916, but had sent him £5 when h e was in Sydney. The case'was adjourned, as further evidence is necessary as to the domicile of the respondent. Furthor divorce cases will be heard) on Friday morning.