DIVORCES GRANTED

Evening Star, Issue 22366, 16 June 1936, Page 10

DIVORCES GRANTED

PETITIONS BY HUSBANDS AND WIVES Petitions for divorce were heard by His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day. SjLEV’VVRIGHT v. SHIPWRIGHT. On the ground of mutual separation for upwards of three years Alexander Campbell Sievwright sought a divorce from Gwendoline Anne Lavender Sievwright. Mr D. A. Solomon appeared for the petitioner and Mr K. G. Archer entered an appearance for the respondent. Petitioner stated in evidence that he was married in April. 1925, at Invercargill, and lived in Dunedin with his wife for some years. He was then appointed to a position which required his travelling through the Dominion. His wife remained in Dunedin. Unhappy differences arose, and his wife and he agreed to separate, an agreement being signed. Witness was still travelling, returning periodically _to Dunedin, but not living with his wife. He saw his wife three times after the separation. _ In March, 1934, he commenced business on his own account in Wanganui, where he had been ever since. - Corroborative evidence having been given, His Honour made a decree nisi, to be made absolute after the expiration of three months. THOMPSON v. THOMPSON. Corroborative evidence was heard in the case of Elizabeth, Thompson (petitioner) v. William Thompson (respondent), a petition for divorce on the ground of mutual separation for upwards of three years, the evidence of the petitioner having been heard at a previous sitting. Mr J. M. Paterson appeared for the petitioner, and Mr B. S. Irwin for the respondent, the latter stating that he desired to be heard only if the question of alimony was raised. Mr Paterson said that no claim would be made either for custody or for alimony. In this case, ,in which the parties separated in December, 1927, His Honour made a decree.nisi, to be made absolute after the expiration of three months.

An order for costs was made against the respondent. CARTRIDGE v. PARTRIDGE. _ Auguste Catherine Frederica Partridge sought a divorce from Frederick Stanley Partridge on the ground of mutual separation for upwards of three years. Mr A. J. W. Wood appeared for the petitioner. Petitioner said she was married in Auckland in July, 1911, and lived with her husband at Auckland, Dunedin, and other places. There were five children. Because of differences' her husband and she agreed to separate in March, 1931. She had worked since, and her husband, whom she had not seen since the separation, had not contributed towards her support. Corroborative evidence was given, and His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months. Interim custody of three children tinder age was granted to petitioner, and an order for costs was made against th« respondent. - FLETCHER v. FLETCHER. Alfred James Fletcher sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against Irene Louise Fletcher. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner, and Mr J. B. Thomson for the respondent. Mr Thomson said the respondent was an infant and did not wish to defend the proceedings - Counsel had discussed the matter with her guardian, who confirmed those instructions. He could say that the respondent would not return to her husband. He was married in 1934, said the, petitioner in evidence. For two weeks his wife and. he lived with his mother until they could get a borne together. Without giving any reason, his wife wont to live with her sister, and witness visited her regularly. He had a home ready in Clinton, but she would not come’ to it. ■ Later, she left, Clinton and came to Dunedin, where he saw her several times. She wanted a separation, but he would not agree, and said be wanted her back. He also wrote asking her to return, and still wanted her to return. His Honour directed that the respondent should return to the petitioner within 14 days after the service of the decree.

JOHNSTON v. JOHNSTON

An order for restitution of conjugal rights was sought by Violet Emily Esther Johnston against Richard Richmond Johnston. ,

Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the i petitioner.-

Petitioner said she was married in 1929 to the respondent, there being one child. She lived with him till November of last year. He was away travelling a good deal. Last year he was away a considerable time and returned in August. He seemed discontented, and several months later left. He was living in Dunedin, though still travelling. He had not come back to her and had sent for his clothes. She had written to him and wanted him back. After hearing the evidence of another witness His Honour made an order directing the respondent to return to the petitioner within 14 days after the service of the decree. DECREES MADE ABSOLUTE. Dorothy Emily M'Connachie (petitioner) v. Edgar Watson M'Connachie (respondent), petition for decree nisi to be made absolute and for permanent maintenance.—Mr B. S. Irwin appeared in support of the motion, and Mr J. M. Paterson for the respondent. —His Honour made a decree absolute, and also made an order by consent for the respondent to pay 10s a week for the maintenance of the petitioner. Amy Winifred Martin (petitioner) v. James Harold Vincent Martin (respondent). —Mr F. B- Adams appeared in support of the motion for a decree absolute.—His Honour made a decree absolute, and granted petitioner the ■ custody of the two children of the marriage. Ada Isabel Lawless (petitioner) v. Thomas Aloysius Patrick Lawless (respondent).—Mr J. M. Paterson appeared for the petitioner, and asked that the decree be made absolute.—Mr W. M'Alevey appeared for the respondent.—A decree absolute was made.