DIVORCE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21662, 6 March 1934, Page 6

DIVORCE COURT

VARIOUS APPLICATIONS TO JUDGE Several divorce applications wore heard before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day. HUSBAND’S PETITION SUCCEEDS. Stanley Arthur Bcnfell (petitioner) v. Vera Benfell (respondent), petition for divorce on the ground of mutual separation for upwards of three years. Mr B. A. Quelch appeared for tho petitioner, and Mr C. L. Calvert for the respondent. Tho case had been adjourned for further corroborative evidence to be adduced. This evidence was that petitioner had lived separate and apart from his wife since 1930. His Honour made a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months. LUMP SUM AS ALIMONY. Stanley L. Peacock (petitioner) v. Margaret M‘L. Peacock (respondent), motion for decree to be made absolute. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for_ the petitioner, and Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., with him Mr J. G. Warrington, for the respondent. Mr White said that an agreement, had been reached whereby a lump sum was to bo paid by the petitioner for alimony or permanent maintenance. That arrangement had been incorporated in a deed, and tho court was asked to approve of the settlement made. Mr Hanlon: We consent. We think, after full investigation of the affairs of the petitioner, that an order in terms of the agreement is the best thing respondent can hope to get. His Honour said that by consent an order would be made for the payment of the lump sum mentioned m the deed by way of alimony by petitioner to respondent. Tho decree nisi was made absolute. DECREE MADE ABSOLUTE. Catherine Evelyn Caddie (petitioner) v. Frank Gordon Caddie (respondent), motion for decree to be made absolute. Mr W. F. Forrester appeared for the petitioner. His Honour made a decree absolute, and granted petitioner the custody and control of the three children of the marriage.