DIVORCE PETITIONS

Evening Star, Issue 18045, 12 August 1922, Page 3

DIVORCE PETITIONS

TWO MISCONDUCT GASES. His Honor Mr Justice Hosking sat this morning to hear petitions in divorce. HAMILTON v. HAMILTON. Annie Mary Hamilton v. Albert Hamilton. Petition for divorce on the ground that the parties had been separated under an order of the Magistrate’s Court for upwards of three years. . . Mr W. L. Moore, for the petitioner, said that tlxe parties were married in Wellington in 1906. About a year later they came to Dunedin and lived together until 1919. The petitioner, on account of respondent’s cruelty, applied in the Magistrate’s Court for a separation order, which was granted. There were six children of the marriage. Two were in the Industrial School, three in St. Mary's Orphanage, and one in the Anglican Boys’ Home. Respondent had done nothing to support his wife, and was now £3O in arrears under the separation order. . . His Honor granted a decree nisi with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months, costs (£ls) to be paid by the respondent. WILSON v. WILSON. Jesse Bertram Wilson v. Frances Cassia Wilson. Petition for divorce on the ground that the parties had been separated by mutual consent for upwards of three years. . . Mr E. J. Smith, for petitioner, said that the petitioner had been paying 30s a week to his wife up to last Christmas, since when he had been out of work and unable to pay anything. There were two children of the marriage, one aged seventeen and the other thirteen and a-half years, who were both in Christchurch and well cared for iby the mother. _ The wife was in a better • financial position than the petitioner, she having a house valued at £1,500 or £2,000, besides _ which she and the eldest boy were earning money. The wife had notified that there would be no opposition to the petition. Petitioner, a commercial traveller, said lie was married in Christchurch in September, 1904. Ho and his wife lived together for fourteen years, but the marriage was an unhappy one from the start. They agreed to separate in June, 1916, and the wife and .children went to live with the former’s people. Witness came to Dunedin last Christmas. The guardianship of the children was fixed by an order of the court made about two years ago. j In reply to His Honor, Air Smith ex plained regarding this order that after the parties had agreed to separate a difference had arisen in connection with access to the children. Petitioner had stopped the maintenance, the wife had applied to the court, and the order was made.

His Honor i I don’t see how you can sustain your case if the order has not been in force for throe years; the original agreement ceases to have force when the order is made, and the position is that the parties have been living apart under that order.

Mr Smith said that, as a matter o! fact, the order had been made over three years ago. His Honor adjourned the matter to allow the citation to be amended so as to bring it on the order and not on the agreement. . FERGUSON- v. FERGUSON. Alexander Ferguson v. Ethel Newland Grey Ferguson. Petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. Mr C. J. Payne, for the petitioner, said that the respondent had deserted her husband for three years and upwards without just cause. The parties were married in 1915, and lived here until April, 1919, when the petitioner objected to his wife keeping company with another man. The respondent thereupon left, and had refused to return to her husband. There were no children of the marriage. His Honor adjourned the case for further evidence as to service of the petition on tho respondent at Hamilton. JORDAN v. JORDAN AND PAGE. David Andrew Young Jordan v. Helen Jordan and. James Page. Petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. Mr B. S. Irwin, for the petitioner, said that the parties were married in 1905, and there was one child of the marriage. The petitioner wont to the war with tho Main Body in 1914, and did not return until January, 1919. While away he had heard rumors about his wife’s behaviour, Tho respondent did not meet him on his return, and he went to a house in Oaversham, where he found her in a drunken condition. The petitioner stopped at the house for the night. About 4 o’clock in tho morning his wife got up and said that she was going for the milk. She did not return until four hours later. This aroused tho petitioner’s suspicions. He left the bouse, and respondent then went to Page’s place. The petitioner called there and thrashed Page. A watch was subsequently kept on Page’s place, and the respondent and co-respondent were seen there in a partly-dressed state. Tho respondent had since written stating that she did not intend to defend tho petition. His Honor granted a decree nisi with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months, correspondent to pay costs on tho lowest scale. HENDERSON v. HENDERSON AND M'STAY. David Millar Henderson v, Margaret Henderson and Robert M'Stay. Petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. Mr 0. J. Payne, for petitioner, said tho parties had been married an March, 1921, and lived in Dunedin till a few months ago, when they separated. On July 2, in consequence of something he hoard, petitioner went to a house in Caversham. He saw a man about the house, and became suspicious, and, with his brother, watched the house. No man departed; hut about 2 a.m. the lights in tho house went out, and witness and his brother entered a bedroom through a window, and found the respondent and corespondent in a compromising position. The latter tried to arrange that no proceedings should be taken, but petitioner insisted, and, further, got the co-respon-dent to sign an admission. Joseph Henderson, the brother, gave evidence. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to move to make it absolute in three months, costs to be paid by tho co-respon-dent.