BROKEN BONDS

Evening Star, Issue 20635, 7 November 1930, Page 9

BROKEN BONDS

DIVORCE DAY IN GODRT PETITIONS OF HOSSANDS AND WIVES Petitions for divorce on various grounds came before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day. REILLY v. REILLY. Louis Gilbert Reilly claimed a divorce from Sarah Augusta Reilly on the ground of failure to comply with an order of the court for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the petitioner, and Mr G. M. Lloyd for the respondent. Petitioner said he was married near Alexandra in 1912. For some time before May last his wife and he were not living together through the refusal of the wife to live with him, and in May the order was made by the court ordering her to return to him. She had not obeyed the order. Witness had a house ready for. her. There was one child of the marriage, fourteen years of age. . , After hearing other _ evidence His Honour made a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months. FIVE YEARS’ DESERTION. Mary Ellen Sangster Crawshaw (petitioner) sought a dissolution of her marriage with Clarence Henderson Crawshaw (respondent) on the ground of desertion. Petitioner was represented by Mr C. L. Calvert. Petitioner, in evidence, said she was married to the respondent in August, 1916, at Dunedin. They lived at Bluff, Dunedin, and Gore, and there were two children of the marriage. She last saw her husband in November. 1925, at Cromwell, when he intended to return in two or three days. After corroborative evidence had been given a decree nisi was granted to be moved absolute at the expiration of three months, petitioner to have interim custody of tho children of the marriage, respondent to pay costs on the lower scale. LEFT IN MELBOURNE. Martha Trotman King (petitioner) sought a dissolution of her marriage with George Edward William King (respondent), on the ground of desertion. Petitioner was represented by Mr R. R. Aspinall. Petitioner said that she and the respondent were married at Auckland in September, 1920, and they lived at Auckland and Melbourne. There were two children of the marriage, one of the children being now dead. In Melbourne respondent was arrested for posing as a winner of the Victoria Cross, and served a sentence of two or three months’ imprisonment. After residing at other places in Victoria respondent deserted her in April, 1926. and petitioner returned to New Zealand. She had since lived at Winton and other places in Otago. Respondent came to New Zealand about six months after she returned, but she had not lived with him since leaving Melbourne. Corroborative evidence was given, after which a decree nisi was granted, to bo moved absolute after the expiration of three months, petitioner to have interim custody of the surviving child of the marriage, respondent to pay costs on the lower scale. HILL v. HILL. Stanley Robert Hill (petitioner) applied for a divorce from Ethel Beatrice Gertrude Hill (respondent) on the f round of separation for three years. Ir A. G. Neill appeared for the petitioner. Petitioner, in evidence, said that he married the respondent at Dunedin in August in 1903. They lived here and then at Auckland, and petitioner was away for a time at the war. There were seven children of the marriage. A deed of separation was entered into in November, 1926, and he had since lived apart from his wife. Only one child was under his guardianship. After corroborative evidence had been given, a decree nisi was made, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months, petitioner to have interim custody of one of the children. HUTTON v. HUTTON.

Separation for three years was the ground on which Laura Emma Hutton (petitioner) sought a dissolution of her marriage with William James Hutton (respondent). Mr B. S. Irwin apnenred for the petitioner. • Petitioner said that she and the respondent were married at Dunedin in August, 1922, and they lived after that at Dunedin and Abbotsford. There was one child of the marriage. In July, 1927, the parties entered into a separation agreement, and since then petitioner had maintained herself and she had not lived with her husband since. Corroborative evidence was given and a decree nisi to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months was made, petitioner to have interim custody of the child of the marriage, respondent to pay costs on the lower scale. _ BENNY v. BENNY.

Desertion was the ground _on which Muriel Isabel Benny (petitioner) applied for a dissolution of her marriage with Arthur George. Rennie (respondent), Mr G. M. Lloyd appeared for the petitioner. . ~ , , Petitioner, in evidence, said that she and the respondent were married in 1924, and there were two children of the marriage. After they had been married for five months the respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for theft. On his release respondent worked on coastal boats, and he later returned to live with her. After some further trouble respondent left the house, and he was later again arrested and sentenced to a. term of imprisonment. She had not lived with him since March, 1926. After corroborative evidence had been given a decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months, petitioner to have interim custody of the children of the marriage, respondent to pay costs on the lower scale. SINGLETON v. SINGLETON, Myrtle I. V. Singleton sought a divorce from Enoch S. Singleton ou the ground of a separation agreement. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner. Petitioner stated in evidence that she was married in 1916, there being one child. In 1925 her husband and she agreed to separate, and she had not lived with him since. After hearing corroborative evidence His Honour made a decree nisi, to bo moved absolute after the expiration of three months. Respondent was ordered to pay costs, and petitioner was granted interim custody of the child

MACDONALD v. MACDONALD. William Martin M'Leod MacDonald (petitioner) sought a dissolution of bis marriage with Doris Elizabeth Sarah MacDonald (respondent) on the ground of separation for • three years. Petitioner was represented by Mr C. J. L. White. Petitioner said that he was married to the respondent in 1920_at Dunedin and there was one , child of the marriage. In July, 1927, the parties

agreed to separate, and since then he had not lived with respondent. Corroborative evidence was given, and a decree nisi was, made, to b© moved absolute after the expiration of. three months.

SPEID v. SPEID. ' Eric John Wardropo Speid sought si divorce from Agnes Peebles Speid on the ground of desertion. Mr H. J. S. Gratfer appeared for the petitioner. .., Petitioner stated in evidence that he \yas married in 1925, and lived with bis wife till August, 1927. On returning home one afternoon he found his wile had gone and taken her effects with her. He saw her in Dunedin later arid asked her to return to him, bub she refused and would give no reason. He had not lived with her since. After- hearing corroborative evidence His Honour made a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months.

ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT. Lionel Vincent Meyrick (petitioner)’ sought a dissolution of his marriage with Dorothy Meyrick (respondent) cm the ground of misconduct. Mr H. J. S.. Grater appeared lor the petitioner and tendered* certain evidence taken in Auckland. Petitioner said that he and the respondent were married at Napier in. 1923, and they had lived at Hastings, Auckland, and Oamaru. In January, 1927, while living in the Oamaru district, the respondent left him. Witness identifiecl photographs of the re* spondent, and also her writing. His Honour said that in .the preparation of the case it was obvious that the decis : #.i in the case of Russell v. Russell had been overlooked, and he would adjourn the case to enable further evidence to be called. HUSBAND’S PETITION.

A petition for restitution of conjugal rights was made by David Milligan Gordon, the wife’s name being Mary Cordon. . , . Mr C. J. L. White (instructed byStewart and Kelly, of Balclutha) appeared for the petitioner. . , Petitioner said he was married in December, 1929. He lived happily with his wife at first. Her .people came to live at his place, and after they went to Dunedin his wife seemed very dissatisfied. After a party in July she told him she was leaving for good. Despite his efforts to dissuade her, she went to Dunedin, leaving a note and the wedding ring on the tabie. He would like his wife to return. After hearing corroborative evidence His Honour made a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, and ordered the respondent to return to her busland within fourteen days.