MATRIMONIAL TROUBLES

Evening Star, Issue 18050, 18 August 1922, Page 6

MATRIMONIAL TROUBLES

', PETITIONS IN DIVORCE. A CROSS ACTION. His Honor Mr Justice Husking sat this morning to hear a number of divorce petitions, and also a petition by a young married man for the restitution of conjugal rights. M'ALILhY v. M'AULEY. Caroline M’Anley v. Andrew M'Auley. Petition for divorce on tho ground of desertion. Air A. C. Hanlon appeared for the petitioner, and Mr W. G. Hay for the respondent. Mr Hanlon said that tho case had been set down for trial before a jury of twelve, but it had been agreed to ask His Honor to dispense with the jury. Tho case woul'd resolve itself into more or less a matter of law.

His Honor: Have I to try a question of adultery ? Mr Hanlon: Yes; but there yvill to no dispxite about it. His Honor: I always prefer a question of adultery in defended cases to bo tv.ed by a jury. It is more like a crime than anything else. Mr Hanlon said that the suit on the part of the wife was based on tho ground of three years’ desertion. Tho defence put in shortly after the desertion alleged that tho petitioner had had on illegitimate child. Mr Hay had assured him (Mr Hanlon) on that point, and: ho had the admission of the petitioner, that it was tune. Mr Hay now wished to have a prayer added to his defence asking for a dissolution of tho marriage on tho ground of misconduct on the part of tho petitioner. His Honor: Tho respondent did not cross-petition. Mr Hanlon: Ho wishes to do so now.

Mr Hay said he wished to acid a prayer denying desertion and alleging adultery. At ’first the husband did) not want bis wife to get a divorce, but since then ho. had changed his mind, because a second illegitimate child had been discovered. He now desired, to amend his answer praying that his marriage with the petitioner be dissolved. M'Auley had always denied that ho deserted his wife. In fact, in 1916 ho wrote his wife asking her to return to his homo. Afterwards, ho found out about, the child. The facts were that the parties were married on April 10, 1912, and lived happily together until 1914, when M'Auley went to work at Roxburgh for two months. In the interval something must have occurred, because -hui the husband returned homo ho formal that his wife’s attitude towards him was changed. She did not again cohabit with him. She had admitted that she had formed an attachment for another man. It was nob known who was the father of the illegitimate child, so that no name could bo mentioned as a co-respondent. M'Auley was asked to proride maintenance for his wife, but he replied that -he had a homo to go to. She did not return, and shortly afterwards he went to the Registry Office and found _ that ,she had registered an illegitimate child in* her own mune. Last week M'Auley ascertained that his wife had given birth to another child. ~ Respondent, a carpenter by occupation, said that two children were born of the marriage, one of whom died. In Moron, 1916, ho intercepted a letter addressed to petitioner in her maiden name, and signed “ Boots.” Since discovering tho fact that his wife had given birth to an illegitimate child he had not seen her or spoken to her. He had no knowledge as to who was the father of this child. Ho denied his wife’s allegation of desertion on his Pi Mr Hanlon said he had no evidence to call. ~ . , . His Honor said the only question in Jus mind was why the long delay had occurred in Ibringinp; action.. The hus-hnn-cl find known of his wife’s infidelity for some time. , ~ Mr Hay pointed out that it was tinwife who’had brought proceedings. The husband would have forgiven, her her first fall; but when he found out about the second child he changed his mind. The child of the marriage was with respondent. His Honor granted the husband a decree. nisi, to bo made absolute in three months. DOUGx\N v. DOUG AN. Norman David Dougan v. _ Ivy Mary Dougan. Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr Hanlon, for the petitioner, said that the parties were very young. They were married only in April of last year, and there was one child of the marriage. In May last the parties were living together in Cirristehurch. The wife k>ft and came to Dunedin to see her parents. She corresponded with her husband for a few weeks, and then said she did not intend veturning to him. She instituted proceed-iu'-s against her husband for maintenance, but they were adjourned sine die in the hope that something might bo done. Tho petitioner had tried to get his wife to return, but she had declined to do so. It was thought that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights might have the desired effect. There was_a similar case the other day where the wife offered to go back. Ilis Honor : I am interested to learn that. It is the first one I have heard of. A decree was made for the restitution of conjugal rights within fourteen days.

KNOX v. KNOX,

Catherine Knox v. John Knox. Petition for divorce on the ground that tho parties had boon separated for over three years. Mr Hanlon, for the petitioner, said that the parties were married in April, ISO 6, and there were four living children of tire marriage. The parties could not get on well together, and in 1918 they separated. The petitioner had tho custody of the children, but owing to illhealth she had to finally give them back to the husband. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it -absolute within three months. ARTHUR v. ARTHUR.

Annie Parke Arthur v. William Vernon Arthur.—Petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. Mr Hanlon, for the petitioner, said that the parties were married fourteen years ago. and there were two children of the marriage. They lived 1 together until April, 1914. when the petitioner left her husband on account of his conduct towards her. She instituted proceedings against him for maintenance, hut they were abandoned because respondent went to the war with the Main Body. He returned in September, 1918, and) had never bothered about his wife andi children. About two rears ago petitioner saw' her husband in the street with a girl. They were, in fact, seen together for some months, and evidence would be called to show that the respondent admitted, to the magistrate hem that he' was the father of a child horn to the girl in question on December 4, 1921. Ho was still paying for its maintenance.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute within three months, petitioner to have the custody of the children, respondent to pay costa on the lowest scale. ROBERTSON v. ROBERTSON.

Jessie Isabella Robertson v. James Robertson.—Petition for divorce on the ground' that the parties had been separated for over three years. Mr Hanlon, for the petitioner, said that the parties were married in 1900, and lived happily-until 1913,,when owing to quarrels thev separated,, and had remained apart ever since. The respondent told his wife that sho could go her way and that he would go his. There was one child of the marriage, which was being supported by the respondent. His Honor granted! a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute within three months, respondent to pay costs on the lowest. scale. HIGHLEY v. HIGHLEY.

John Highley T. Hannah Highloy.—Petition' for divorce on the ground of desertion.

Mr’ Tdnkinson, for the petitioner, _ said that, the parties were married at Winton in and aftarweatfa came to DjmedilS,

They lived here happily, for about fifteen years, when another man came on the scone. _ In December, 1911, the wife left Dunedin, and) had lived in Sydney ever since. There were two children of the marriage.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute within three months.