SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2644, 12 May 1923, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE CASES YESTERDAY. His Honour Sir John Salmond was engaged at the Surpeme Court yesterday in the hearing of divo,rcc cases. The first action taken was that in which Prank Rosvall (Mr Fletcher) sought a dissolution of his marriage with Mary J. Rosvall, Charles Avery being cited as corespondent. There was no appearance of respondent. Petitioner, a labourer, residing at Bunnythorpc, said that after his mar. rlago the parties came to Palmerston North, then went to -Napier, subso quently returning to Palmerston North. There were two children of the mar. riage, but they were now in All Saints’ Homo. The first three years of his married life, petitioner said, were as happy as he could wish, but after that period interest waned , and after a few quarrels his wife left him on August 25, 1919. Witness learned that his wife went to Wellington, thence to Christchurch.

Evidence was given by Sarah Jane Day, a maternity nurse at Wellington, that about two years ago respondent called on witness with an illegitimate child, saying that she wanted to find a home for it. Later, respondent told witness that she had been intimate with Avery. Petitioner went to Christchurch to see Avery. and a short time later witness received a letter stating that she would be required at Christchurch, and another child was subsequently born, in October, 1922. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, costs to be paid by the co.respondent and petitioner to have the interim custody of the child. 1 ■ ANOTHER HUSBAND’S PETITION. The next case was one in which James William Young formerly of .Miaimou and now of Whakaronga, sougth a similar order against his wife, L. M, E. Young, on the ground of adultery. Johu Moffitt was cited as co.respondent. Mr A. M. Onglcy appeared for .jctitioner. Mr J. P. limes for respond, ent and Mr G. I. McGregor for the co. respondent. In, giving evidence, petitioner men. tioned the places where the parties had resided since being married. When petitioner was at Christchurch he received a wire in his wife’s name from Gisborne, asking him to come as she was not well. She sent him £5 to cover the cost of the trip, and witness left, but on arrival at Gisborne he waited four days before the arrival of his wife from Auckland. Witness said his father had a hotel at Greymouth, and ho took his wife there, but her conduct, when under the influence of liquor, did not please witness’s father. Subsequently, when witness was at Shannon, respondent wrote. saying that she was giving up her business as a mil. liner at Gisborne, and wanted some money. Witness sent down £26, and respondent later arrived at Shannon, where witness found accommodation for her. Witness described instances of respondent's late arrival at home during the elections, and when interrogated she was alleged to have said,

“mind your own business.” Later again his wife commenced a tirade of abuse, ■and eveu went so far as to say she would employ boys in the street to “give him a hiding.” Witness re. ferred to an instance when he found his wife in a room one afternoon with Moffitt. There was an empty beer bottle in the room, and his wife’s attire was disarranged, and she herself was ”un. der the influence.” though not drunk. Herbcat Childs' a flaxcutter at Shan. ’ non, also gave evidence. Constable McGregor, stationed at Shannon, gave evidence as to calling at Moffitt’s house, the door of which was opened by Mrs Young. Moffitt’s wife was away, and there were other men in the house in a more or less inebriated condition. Moffitt explain, ed that he had engaged a Mrs McConnell to come and look after the children while his wife was away, and she brought the respondent with her. Mrs McConnell, or the person called by that name, was a woman of questionable reputation.

For the respondent, Mr Innes contended that there had been no evidence of adultery. There may have been a good deal of drinking, but no evidence to prove adultery.

His Honour: “I must take all the circumstances into account.” Laura Matilda E. Young, the respondent in the action, said that when she came to Shannon her husband got ,ier a single room, unfurnished, and .ater left her there, and went to live it another place. Witness said she was accustomed whilst there to going long walks in the dark by herself.

To Mr Onglcy: When at Moffitt’s place, where she had gone to mind the children, and but for the shelter of whoso roof she would have had to sleep out, she had used “old Mrs Me. Connell’s’’’ nightdress. His Honour: “Why did you not go and get one of your own at Child's place?” l —“You should see the streets of Shannon, sir, they are so dark.” (Laughter.) Mr Ongley: “Did you consider the house perfectly respectable with all those strange men about.” —“As far as 1 was concerned, the house was more than respectable.” John Moffitt, described as a hair, dresser, said ho first met Mrs Young a few days after her arrival at Shan. when she called into the saloon to get her hair trimmed. Witness said that subsequently he was informed that Mrs Young was practically home, less, but he said he could not accommodate her, though she stayed there that night Witness had invited some friends up, and they brought a bottle of whisky and also a flask. After Mrs McConnell had complained about the row the meu were making, she made them some supper, and later, at about 2 a.m. Mrs Young put her head round —door and also complained that she could not sleep for the com motion. However, she remained for a drink, and then, so witness understood, went back to bed.

At this stage (10.30 o’clock) his Honour adjourned the cas© until 9.30 this morning.