CONNUBIAL DISCORD

Evening Star, Issue 19325, 11 August 1926, Page 11

CONNUBIAL DISCORD

: [JEIEF FEW 'MMIAGE TIES' ■ YESTERDAY’S CASES A nurtibor of petitions for dissolution qf marriage camo before His Honor Mr Justice Sim in the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon. “WENT AWAY SHOOTING.” , Margaret Morris (Mr Moore) v. Ernest Thomas Morris, dissolution on the grounds of three years’ separation. The petitioner said that she was married on Juno 24, 1901. There were no children. Respondent had the “habit, of going away shooting.” He wont blind in Melbourne. Respondent left her about Easter, 1922, and never returned, but he wrote once from Melbourne. She had never received any money, and she bad kept herself by working at the Iloslyn Mills until she '"as thrown out of employment in March last. Mr Moore said ho understood respondent was shot by a woman in Melbourne. and was blind as a result. Charlotte Fleming said that she had lived nearly opposite petitioner's place, and she knew the parties well. It must have been more than three years since the husband left Mrs Morris. A decree nisi was granted with leave to move to make it absolute ut the end of three mouths. No order lor costs was made. ■WENT TO AMERICA. Elizabeth Charlotte MTheo (Mr W. G. Hay) v. Gilbert James M'Phee, dissolution on the grounds of desertion. The petitioner said that she was married on June 23, 1915. There were two children, and she had custody of them. She had lived in Taihapc, Wellington, and Dunedin. Her husband had been employed in the War Expenses Office in Wellington, and during their stay there the first child was born. She left Wellington on account of her health, her husband remaining there. She event to live with her mother-in-law in Stratford, hor husband visiting her there. On. an average he sent her £C per month. Jhs payments became irregular after the second child was born, and he wrote stating that ho was giving up his position. and would go shearing at Temnka. Ho sent her some money, and said it would bo some time' before petitioner heard from him again. She had not received any payments since, nor had she heard from him. The police ascertained that respondent had never gone to Tomuka. She took out a warrant for his arrest, but he was never found, as it was discovered that ho had > ailed on the Maknra for America. She was still quite friendly with her mother-in-law. Witness could not say whether her husband was dead or alive. J'he order for service had been advertised in Los Angeles. John Lambert MThee, a steward, said that petitioner was his sister-in-law. Witness boarded with hor brother in Wellington, _ Respondent stayed away for some time, and ho discovered that lie -had left on the Makura. Neither witness nor any member of bis family had heard of respondent since lie disappeared. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to move it absolute at the end of three months. No order for costs was made. REFUSED TO LEAVE SCOTLAND.

James Lang (Mr W. G. Hay) v. Rnehcl Lang (Mr E. A. Duncan), dissolution on Hie grounds of desertion. Tim petitioner, a farm laborer, rosid--1 i'h! at Clinton, said lie was married on [ July IG, 19U9, in Scotland. There were two children. After his marriage lies lived in Glasgow for three years, and thou went to Australia. Ho lolt Ins ’ wile in Glasgow, the understanding, j being that ho was to make a homo for her. Ho resided in Melbourne for three or four months, and came to the dominion at the end of 1912. lie communicated regularly with his wife, and also sent her money until February, 1916, when bo sent her £lO and askou her to come to Now Zealand, but she did not come. His Honor: Did she write ? Witness: Yes. His Honor; Well, what did you do with the letter? Witness: I burnt it. Witness added that liis wife explained the reason wny she had nob left was that she had spent the money. She wanted more money. He wrote her again, but she did not answer. His Honor: Have you any letters ar all? Witness: No. His Honor: Anri you aro an cx-pohcc constable. I thought you would have had enough souse to have kept some documents. Surely your 'police training would have taught you that? Witness said that ho had communicated with his wife in 192.1, when he agreed to nominate her passage money. She did nob como, however. His Honor; You didn’t send anything after tho £10? Witness; Not direct to her. I sent money to my sister for tho maintenance of the children. Chari as Carter, a farm laborer, at Clinton, said ho had known tho last witness about four years. During that period petitioner had not seen his wife. Mr Hay said that ho understood Mr Duncan would make an application regarding tho maintenance of the children. i A decree nisi was granted, with leave to move it absolute at tho end of three months. THREE •YEARS’ SEPARATION. Jessie Jano _ Russell (Mr AY. L. Moore) v. William Lunan Russell, dissolution on tho grounds of separation order. Tho petitioner said that she was married on October 26, 1911. She had lived at Oamaru and Omarama. There were two children. She had taken proceedings against her bus- I band in tho Police Court for maintenance and _ separation orders on the grounds of failing to maintain. Respondent had paid up under the order, but sho_ had not lived nor communicated with him. Stanley Stewart, a. brother of petitioner, residing at Oamaru, said that his sister had not lived with her husband for three years. A decree nisi was granted, with leave ’ to make it absolute at the end of three months. Petitioner was granted custody of the children, and respondent was ordered to pay costs on the lowest scale. MARRIED NINE MONTHS. Henry Otto Brandt (Mr B. S. Irwin) v. Olivo Josephine Brandt (Mr A. C. Hanlon), dissolution on the grounds of adultery. Sydney Cole was cited as co-respondent, 1 Mr Hanlon s,aid that he had entered an appearance on behalf of respondent, but he had not been instructed fur- I ther. I Mr Irwin said that tho parties had been married on May 27, 1925, but only lived together for nine months, respondent having lived with another man since then. Tho petitioner said ho lived with his : wife until March of this year, when respondent left him. In April ho wont to a house in Bath street, and found , respondent and the co-respondent. He i asked his wife to como back, but she refused. Ho was present when the papers were served on his wife and tho co-respondont. Witness understood that his wife had gone to AVellington. j Susannah M'Gnirc said that she had ' let a room to a man ‘and woman, who she now know to he respondent and ; co-respo.ndent I Denzil! John Simpson said that he had served the papers on the parties. ( A decree nisi was granted, with j leave to make it absolute at tbc end I of three months. Co-respondent was ordered to pay costs.

“ DIDN’T WANT HIM.” Michael Thomas Neylon (Mr Moore, instructed by Mr J. S. Grater) v. Ethel May Neylon, dissolution on the grounds of separation for three years. The petitioner, a blacksmith, residing .at Ifuirlio, said that his wife had pu-viously [Hititioned for a divorce on tilt? grounds of adultery, but it had been dr missed on the grounds that she had condoned the adultery. Continuing, petitioner said that ho had lived in various planes in Southland after his marriage. A separation order was made in Invercargill in May, 1923. He had not lived with his wife since, and had not spoken to' her. Respondent had refused to take, any money from him. Witness - understood that respondent was living with her people in Invercargill. She on one occasion told him that she didn’t want him or his money. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute at the end of throe months. NAILED TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE. Mary Straughon Anderson (Mr A. C. Hanlon) v. Alexander Anderson (Mr A. G. Neill, instructed by Mr T. S. Dacrc), dissolution on tho grounds of separation. Mr Neill said ho had received no instructions. The petitioner said she was married in August, 1913, there being two children. A separation order was made in December, 1921, and was still in force. Respondent had failed to provide any money for her maintenance. Ho was earning good money as a teamster. She had to take proceedings against her husband on several occasions. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months. An interim order for tho custody of the children was made, with costs on the lowest scale.

Nathaniel Carr (Mr J. S. Sinclair) v. Ada Carr (Mr B. S. Irwin), dissolution on the grounds of separation for three years. Mr Irwin said that the future interest of the children had been looked after.

The petitioner said lie was married on March 17, 1911. After the marriage lie lived in Dunedin, bis wife obtaining a separation on November 24, 1923, on the ground that he had failed to maintain her. There were three children. He had not lived with his wife since the separation order was made. He had resided for about eighteen months in Auckland, the rest of the time being spent in Dunedin. ■Rebecca Fish, sister of the petitioner, said that her brother always _ lived with her while in Dunedin. Petitioner had rot lived with his wife since the separation order. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months.