SEVERED BONDS

Evening Star, Issue 19857, 4 May 1928, Page 5

SEVERED BONDS

DIVORCE DAY IN COURT JUDGE GRANTS DEGREES A number of petitions for divorce were heard by His Honour Mr Justice Sim this morning in the Supremo Court. HODGE v. HODGE. Herbert Hodge (petitioner) v. Lily Agnes Hodge (respondent), petition for divorce on tho ground of desertion, Mr E. J. Smith, who appeared for tho petitioner, said tho parties were married at Dunedin in 1914, and lived at Musselburgh for over three years. During that time they lived fairly happily, but one day in October, 1917, when the petitioner returned home, he found his wife had gone, leaving the children. She had left no message. Petitioner took the children to Jus mother. About a week later petitioner heard that his wife was in Wellington, and ns a result of representations she came back for a fortnight. She seemed to bo dissatisfied, and at the end of October went away again. She had not lived with him since. In 1918 petitioner himself was shifted to Wellington, and there ho saw respondent on rare occasions. When petitioner wont to see respondent and told her ho was taking divorce proceedings, she said: “ 1 wonder you did not do that long ago.” Evidence was given by petitioner and by his married sister. His Honour granted a decree nisi, with leave to make it absolute at tho end of three months. CAMPBELL v. CAMPBELL.

William Miller Campbell (petitioner) v. Laura Ellen Campbell (respondent), petition for divorce on the ground of desertion.

Mr T. O’Shea, who appeared for the •petitioner, said tho parties were married in 1909. They lived together for throe months in "Dunedin, then for three years in Kurow, and then they returned to Dunedin to live till December, 1915. In that month petitioner left as a baker on a transport and made a number of voyages between New Zealand and Egypt, and Now Zealand and England. During that period the relationship between the parties was harmonious When petitioner returned to Now Zealand in January, 1919, his wife did not appear to meet him, and on inquiring ho found that she 'had gone away on January 4, taking with her their little daughter. Petitioner interviewed tho police, who informed him she was in Christchurch, whore she had gone with a man who was wanted for failure to maintain. Petitioner wont to Christchurch, and asked her to return, but she refused. He brought back the daughter, and lived in Dunedin with her and with the other child. Ho had seen the respondent only once since he interviewed her in Christchurch, that being when she came here to seo the children, and when ho informed her of tho divorce proceedings. Petitioner stated in evidence that while ho was away his wife received an allotment of ,Cl2 a month. He went away because there was a shortage of bakers on the troopships. After hearing corroborative evidence, His Honour granted a decree nisi, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months. INGLE v. INGLE.

Alma E. Ingle (petitioner) v. Norman Augustus Ingle (respondent).— Petition for divorce on tho ground of mutual separation for three years or upwards. Mr A. C. Hanlon, for the petitioner, said the parties were married in 1922. In 1922 the husband was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for carnal knowledge and indecent assault. A deed of separation was still in lorco. After hearing evidence, His Honour granted a- decree nisi, with leave to move it absolute at the end of three months. Petitioner was granted interim custody of the one child of the marriage. WEBB v. WEBB.

Elizabeth Webb (petitioner) v. William Herbert Webb (respondent).— Petition for divorce on the ground of mutual separation for three years or upwards. Mr B. S. Irwin, for tho petitioner, said tho parties were married in 1911. Tho husband turned out to be of drunken habits, and the wife found it necessary to seek a separation order. After hearing evidence by the respondent, her married sister, and a clerk of the Magistrate’s Court, His Honour made a. decree nisi, with leave to move it absolute at tho end of three months. An interim order was made giving the petitioner the custody of the children, and respondent was ordered to psy costs on the lowest scale.