DIVORCE DAY

Evening Star, Issue 21711, 4 May 1934, Page 12

DIVORCE DAY

PETITIONS IN SUPREME COURT Applications for divorce on various grounds were heard by His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day. DECREE GRANTED. Ruth Templeton sought a divorce from William Templeton under a separation agreement, Mr C. J. L. White appearing for the petitioner. Petitioner gave evidence that she was married to respondent at Dunedin On June 19, 1894, there being eleven children of the marriage, and nine of them were still living. She lived with her husband at Dunedin and Green Island until the beginning of 1931, and they then agreed to separate, an agreement for separation being drawn up at that time. They had lived separately ever since. Corroborative evidence was given, and His Honour granted a decree nisi to be made absolute after the expiration of three months'. WIFE DOES NOT RETURN. Louis William Walker (petitioner) applied for a divorce from Eileen Julier Walker, the grounds being failure to comply with ah order for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for "e petitioner. In evidence petitioner said he had lived in New Zealand all his life, and, was married on October 16, 1923, to the respondent. In February, 1933, his wife left him, and did not come back, notwithstanding his request that she should return. He applied for restitution of conjugal rights in September, and in November an order was made for her to return within fourteen days. Respondent had not done so. Corroborative evidence was given, and a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months. DESERTION THE GROUNDS. Annabella Mercer Dripps petitioned for a divorce against James Smythe Dripps on the grounds of desertion. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the petitioner. Petitioner said she was married to the respondent in 1921, and after the marriage they lived in Dunedin, Wellington, and Christchurch. There were no children. The marriage was not a happy one. She received very little money from her husband, and decided to take on a boarding house. She had to do this to support herself. Later she had to issue a summons for maintenance, but withdrew it. She took this step a second time, and the order was again withdrawn on condition that money was paid to her. Only one payment of 30s had been made. She later went to Wellington and Taumarunui, and she saw her husband in Wellington, where she agreed to give him_ a ehance to make it up. However, he again failed to maintain her, and she came back to Dunedin and worked for herself. In 1924 her husband wrote to her from Christchurch asking her to go to him, as he had been injured. She went there after resigning her position and found _there > seemed to be nothing wrong with him. Three weeks afterwards they separated # again, and she had not seem him since, except that she thought she had seen him in 1931 working with a gang on the Anderson’s Bay road. She had made inquiries for him, but had not seen him since, > .

Corroborative evidence was - given, nnd a decree nisi was granted,. to be made absolute at 'the expiration of three months, the respondent to pay costs on the lowest scale and witnesses expenses at a rate to be fixed by the registrar. ERRANT HUSBAND. Ivie Kathleen Johnston sought a divorce from Talbot Leslie Norford Johnston on the grounds of adultery. Mr W. D. Taylor appeared m support of the petition. Evidence that the parties were married at Auckland on December 18, 1922, was given by the petitioner, who said that after the marriage she had lived with her husband at Auckland and Whangarei, subsequently going to Wellington, and from there to Dunedin about eight years ago. Her husband was a traveller, and in January of this year was selling flax bonds. In May, 1932, they were separated by court order and lived apart until April, 1933, when they came together again for a period of about four months. Her husband left her in August of last year, and she had not seen him since. ' She knew that her husband had been arrested at the i Rae’s Junction Hotel this year. The photograph (produced) was of her husband, who was usually known as “ Tal.” Her husband was now serving a sentence in respect of an offence for ■which he was arrested at Rae’s Junction. Evidence was given by Mary Gollpp, wife of the proprietor of the Rae’s Junction Hotel, that. a man named Johnston had stayed at her hotel on January 24. Johnston had booked in as Mr and Mrs Johnston, but petitioner was not the woman who was .with Johnston. They were known about the hotel as Mr and Mrs Johnston and occupied a room together. The uianin the pho'tograph (produced) was Johnston, who stayed at the hotel with a woman unknown to witness. They stayed there for a week. The always referred to Johnston as Ta!His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months. Petitioner was given interim custody of the children of the marriage, and respondent was ordered to pay petitioner’s costs on the lowest scale, witnesses’ expanses, and disbursements to be fixed byy the registrar. /' ■ SEPARATION AGREEMENT CASE. Eileen Clarkson (petitioner) applied for a divorce against Clarkson (respondent) in terms of a separation aS Mr 1 B 0 . 11 S. Irwin appeared for the petitioner and Mr R. D.-Edirmaid for the respondent, the latter ’ stating that the application was not ctpposed, , _ Petitioner said shb was married to the respondent in /1925 at St. Kilda, and she had expected that he would provide a home for her. However, she found he had ■ nqfthing. She returned to her home in Gimmerburn, and two years later tookproceedings for< maintenance in the/court at Naseby. A separation agreement was signed in 1927. Since ttyat document was signed she had not seen her husband. After corroborative evidence had been given a decree nisi was granted, to be made absohfte at the expiration of three months, petitioner to have the custody of "the child. UNHAfPPY MARRIED LIFE. Daisy /Augustus Brown petitioned for diworce against . Alfred Edgar Brown, /the grounds being a separation agreement. Mr G. M. Lloyd appeared in support of th« petition. Petitioner said she was married in Dunedin ip. March,, 1911 g Her married.

life was hot happy, and in 1930 shaj entered into a deed of separation withr her husband. ■ She. thought he was now} in Australia. , _ After’ (corroborative. evidence bait been heard a decree, nisi was granted* to be piade absolute at the expiration! of three months. , ’DOMESTIC TROUBLES. Mabel, Frances Haylock GwyniML petitioned for a divorce against John Tho&as Gwynne in terms of a separation agreement. , Mr J. B. Thomson appeared for th* petitioner. - - / Petitioner told ; the court that shat was married in April, 1908, at Caver/sham, and lived for a time in Dunedin and Lumsden. There were three; children. Her husband and. she had some trouble, and a separation agree- . nient 'was signed in 1924, ■ since when! they had never lived together;. She had engaged herself in domestic work? since that time. . , Further evidence was given, and fin Honour granted a decree nisi,. to bemade absolute at the expiration of three months. PETITION NOT OPPOSED. / Robert Larkins (petitioner) v. Lily Caroline Larkins, (respondent) .—Petition for divorce in terms of a separation agreement. , Mr J. B- Thomson appeared for tuW petitioner and Mr L. H. Sumpter foi£ the respondent. Mr Sumpter said th# petition was not opposed. . _ In evidence, the petitioner said was married in 1927 to respondent, and they lived in Oamaru for some monthsIn February, 1928, five months after! the marriage, he was compeljed to go into hospital, and he was laid up for* two and a-balf years. At the beginning of his illness he was on friendly terms with his’wife, but there was a change in their relationship at Easter, 1929, when there was .a slight disturbance, when she was visiting him in hospitalAfter this be returned to Port Chalmera and found that his wife had become friendly withia brother of his. He took., exception to this. Subsequently they! had a talk, and agreed to sign a separa-| tion agreement under which he was tot| pay 22s 6d a week. . A little later he, had a had motor accident and was laid up again. He had not lived with his wife since the agreement. After corroborative evidence had been heard His Honoqr granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months. . DECREES MADE ABSOLUTE. Decaees were made absolute in the following cases:—-Ambrose Patrick Saul Day (petitioner) and Ida Mary Day] (respondent), and Eric John Wardropa* Speid (petitioner) and Agnes Peeblf# Speid (respondent). :