THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 14575, 25 May 1911, Page 5

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.-IN DIVORCE. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) PIGDON V. PIGDON AND BRUCE. G«orge Victor Pigdon (petitioner) v. MaTgaret Eva Pigdon (respondent) and Chartas Bruce (co-respondent). A petition for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct. . There was no appearance of the respondent or co-re-spondent. Mr J. F. Woodhouse, who appeared for tho petitioner, said that Pigdon was a working man employed on the Drainage Board works. He was married to the petitioner in Dunedin on the Bth of June, 1904. They afterwards wont to Timaru, whero tho co-respondent boarded with them. Next they went to live at Clinton, And in the month of Deccsuber last Mre Pigdon, with her husband's consent, left to spend a holiday in Chrietchurch. Her husband was not aware of it at the time, but it appeared that she went no further than Dunedin, where she met the corespondent.' She went back to Clinton, and then about Christmas time she returned to Dunedin and again met the corespondent. Tho petitioner found this out aftonvarde, and had now brought these proceedings. The respondent and co-respondent wero photographed together. The petitioner, in his evidence, said that ho had made inquiries, and believed that the respondent and co-respondent were now living in Sooth Dunedin. Evidence was also given by Laura Mabel Fraser (boarding-house keeper). Ilk Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, costs on the lowest 6cale against the co-respondent. HARRIS V. HARRIS. Elizabeth Ham's v. Arthur Horton Harris. A petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. There was no appearance of the respondent. Mr J. F. Wood house appeared for tho petitioner. He said that the parties were married at Cromwell in March, 1897. About 1903 they went to Gore, where the respondent was employed as a draper. About 1905 the petitioner went to stop with her people at Cromwell until the summer, and the respondent went to live at the house of the mother of the girl ivith whom the misconduct was charged. He next took a house for himself and took this girl as housekeeper. The respondent afterwards moved to Feildiag, in the North Island, and while he was there he wrote a letter to hi 6 brother-in-law confessing misconduct. Mrs Harris had not seen him since. She a maintenance order against him for the payment of £1 a week for the support of the childen. and it was paid for a time. The other girl, who had threo children. \v;is believed to bo back again in Gore, and the man could not be found.

Evidence was given by the petitioner and Euphemia M'Nulty (married and living in Dunedin).

His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs against the respondent. Petitioner to have the custody of tho children. JOLLY V. JOLLY AND FOGARTY. William Skeen Jolly (petitioner) v Charlotte Jolly (respondent) and William Fogarty (co-respondent).—A petition for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct. There was no appearance of the respondent or the co-respondent. Mr C. X. Scurr appeared for the petitioner. He said that the parties were married in Dunedin on the 51st March, 1897, and lived happily until tho year 1908. Two children were born of the "marriage. In 1908 the respondent went out frequently at night, saying that she was going to mind somebody's children. One night Jolly went to this person's place to find if his wife was there, and he found that she was not there, nor had she been there on any of the other nights. One night when he returned from town with his boy he found Fogarty in his house with his "wife. He asked her what it meant, and she produced Fogarty's photograph.- She afterwards took proceedings against the husband for the maintenance of the two children, when she admitted misconduct, and the magistrate refused to make an order.

Evidence was given by the petitioner. Constables Dart (of South Punedin) and Butler (court orderly), and Daniel Berry (bailiff). His Honor granted a decree nicsi, to be made absolute in Lhreo months, with costs on the lowest scale against Fogarty, the petitioner to have the custody of the children. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowsnn, Esq., S.M.) Judgment by default was given to plaintiffs in the foflowing cases : —Johnston, Sons, and (Jo. (Mr Seantlebury) v. Amos Mudgway (Darniorirko), 18t>, and 10s costs, claim for goods; Roland Wilson (Mr Irwin) v. Ernest Stevens (Mataura). £1 13s 6d and costs (ss), goo<ls; Walter A. Scott (Mr Moure) v. John ISorthwiek (Green Island), £lO lis and rests (£1 13s 6d), goods; J. R. MacEwan and Co., Ltd. v. John K. Farnie, £1 19s 2d, and costs (12s), balance, of account; Donald Reid and Co.. Ltd. (Mr Bundle) v. John Fitzpatrick, £3 0s 9d and costs (12s), balance of account; Reilly, Scott, and dill (Mr Statham) v. Thomas Hussey, 3-s and costs (ss), goods; same v. C. F. Falconer (Kelso), £1 19s 21, and 5s costs, goods; Win. Cunningham (Mr Bedford) v. John Burns, £3 16s lOd and costs (10s), goods; Dawson and Co., Ltd. (Mr Irwin) v. Thos. M'Kay, costs, ih.