IN DIVORCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17251, 19 August 1916, Page 14

IN DIVORCE.

SUPREME COURT SITTINGS. UNDEFENDED CASES. Undefended divorce case* were heard by his Honor Mr Justice Deuniston at the Supreme Court yesterday. FISHER v. FISHER. In re 'Annie Frances Fisher (Mr Hunt), petitioner, v. Harry Fisher, respondent, his Honor, after perusing the papers, said that evidently the respondent had received service. A rule nisi was granted, to he madeabsolute in three months. HARTOG v. I-lARTOG. In re Henry Lynne liartog (Mr Hunt) v. Josephine E. Lynne iiartog, respondent and Edward Gatonby Hopkins, co-respondent, Air Hunt said that the case was somewhat out ot the ordinarv, since Airs liartog was engaged early in 1915 to the co-respondent Hopkins. and* the wedding day was fixed. The bridegroom was to come from Wellington. but ho did not arrive, and! it seemed that he had lc-ft for .Sydney and joined the forces. Six or seven months after that, on July 12, 3915, she gave birth to a child, and on October 15 obtained a maintenance order against Hopkins in respect of tho child. This occurred before her marriage io liartog 'on December 5. It did not seem to-have been a very happy marriage from the start. , - Mis Honor: It opened inauspiciously. Was he aware of the child?

Air Hunt: tie was only aware of it a d'ay or two before he married her. He went on to sav that finally Airs Hartog had left her Wine, and had confessed that she had found Hopkins and stayed with him, and he had given her £SO, and' she was to join him. Hartog, the petitioner, gave detail evidence on these lines.

Frank O’Connell, inquiry agent, gave evidence of serving the summons. A decree nisi was granted, to he made absolute in three months. Ilis Honor remarked that the divorce seemed to have been carefully arranged between the parties, hut. there was no objection to it under the circumstances, as the case had been peculiar from the beginning. PRICE v. rfclCE.

Hannah Price (Air Orbell) petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage'with Ernest Gcprgo Prico on tho ground of desertion. Tho petitioner gave evidence that she was married on January 6, 1910, and lived with the respondent in Christchurch. where a child ivas born. She lived with her husband till November 1, 1910, when he was ordered to find sureties of tho peace and went to gaol hi default. She had not seen him since or heard of him. Edward Cecil, brush manufacturer, living at Christchurch, said that he had known Price well since his marriage. Ho got a letter from Price from Tnnurn some five years ago, stating that ho was a porter at the Empire Hotel, hut was shortly going away, and that when he get to ins destination ho would write. Later he'sent a telegram simply saying that ho was gone. Ho had never hoard of him again. Constable Ryan produced tho pohec record allowing that Price had been discharged from gaol oh April 8. 191 L A decree nisi, with custody of the child, was granted, to be made absolute, in three months. His Honor declined to make an order for costs, stating that ho would never do so where service was dispensed with. WOOD v. MOOD. Martha Wood (Air AI. Donnelly) petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage to Edward Thomas A\ ood Tho petitioner gave evidence that she was -at present earning a living as attendant on an invalid-lady in Christchurch. She was married to Wood on April 27. 1899. at Oust, and there -was one child of the marriage. He loft her in April. 1910, while they were at, Woodend. saying that ho was going to look for work. She had not/seen him since, or received anything from him. She had maintained the child. In August, 1913, a warrant was issued for his* arrest for maintenance, but he had not been found. W. A. Banks, clerk at the Alagistvato’s Court, gavo evidence that the warrant had not been served. Margaret Wood, the daughter, aged sixteen, said that she had not heard of her father since 1910. A decree vas granted, to bo made absolute in three months. THOMPSON v. THOAIPSON.

Andrew Harry Craig Thompson (Air AI Donnelly) petitioned for ft dissolution of marriage from Tanny E. Thompson. James M’Donald was named as co-respondent. The petitioner, a labourer, gave evidence that ho was married on October 25 1909, at Sheffield. While, they were living at Dealey Flat M’Donald was working there, and in September, 1915, his wife left him. Through the agency of the police he was informed that his wife was working as a servant in Fendalton, and he went there for her. She agreed to come back, and did.so between last Christmas and New Year., lie took a house in Syd,enh.am for her and tho children, although he was working at Benley. On March 4 he lost the sight of ono eyo in an accident, and was in hospital a month. Hb thou 'wont home, and a few days later his wife left one day, say in" that sho was going to Brighton for tho day, aud would be back in tho evening. He waited until tho next day, when he went to Brighton, and toumj her sitting on a seat with M’Donald. Ho askecr her to consider the children if she did not consider him, and ' finally she consented to go home. M’Donald came back on the same car, and his wife had to get her purso from him. Sho came home, but told him that she hated him, and wished that she was free to go to M’Donald. Later on sho went away, and ho went to Neville's house, Trafalgar Street, and found 31’Donald i and his wife there. Ho asked M’Donald to admit the intimacy in writing, and lie said ho would Bee. He then went in and came out with his wife, who said that she objected to anything in writing, as he only wanted to drag her name down and get her child from her. Ho went back

to Neville’s house on Juno 25 with Walter Wright, and waited on the footpath outside tho house. They saw his Ivifo and M’Douahl came to the front door when the Salvation Army Band went past. Mr Neville at this time was in camp at Trontham, and Airs Neville was in Wellington. j-li, Honor said that he was mute satisfied the two had been living alone in the house. . , , Walter Wright, petitioners brother-in-law', gave corroborative evidence. Joseph Benson, railway porter, living at Scott, Street, four houses away from Thompson’s house, said that early m tho year, while Thompson was in hospital M‘Don ald used to visit, the house, staying till very late at night. } , A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three .months. Costs were granted against the co-respon-dent. • ’ TURVEY r. PURVEY. Matilda Turvoy (Mr Goodman) petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Frank Frederick Turvey, on the ground of misconduct. The petitioner gave evidence that she was married on June 26, 1895, and’ had lived at. Woolston and Christchurch. There were six children surviving. Her husband left her eight years ago last February stating that ho was going to live with a Airs Webster. Twelve months later a maintenance order was made against him for tho children, but l:e had paid very 'little under it, ancl cleared away to the West Coast, but came hack to Christchurch two years ago, and' had lived with Airs Webster since. She had been to their house to get money on tho order, and they had admitted living together. His Honor: Why than t you .take proceedings before! ' Witness: I have not had tho money. I have had to work hard for my children; H. S. Broderick gave evidenco that ho had served the petition on Turvey. He called later and asked for Airs Tur-vc-y, and the woman who came to the door said that sho was Mrs Turvey. Turvey admitted living with the woman.

A decree nisi was granted, fo be made absolute in three months, with interim custody of two children. • HOARE v. HOARE. The case of Id on re v. Hoare was held over until next session.