SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2645, 14 May 1923, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE PETITIONS. Before His Honour, Sir John Salmond, on Saturday the hearing of the petition of James Young, of Shannon, for a dissolution of his marriage with L.M.E. Young, on the grounds of adultery with John Moffitt, was proceeded with.

Cross-examined by Mr Ongley, corespondent said he had not known Mrs Young was in the house until she came into the room to complain about tiie noise. It was about 2 o’clock in the morning and there, was “a company” present drinking whisky, airs Young had a drink with them. His Honour; Mr Ongley, I don’t want to hear all the squalid details of that week over again. The essential fact is that this woman, being married, spent the night at the house of the co-respondent while his wife was away.

Thomas Frame, deposed to having been in the house on the night under review. Moffitt and witness went to look at a baby which was in Mrs Young’s room. He could not be certain whether Mrs Young was there or not.

His Honour: You were so occupied with the baby that you did not notice whether there was a lady in bed or, not?

His Honour, in summing up, said: “A charge of adultery was scarcely ever capable of direct proof. It is a matter of inference.” After reviewing the evidence in detail, His Honour continued: "When a married woman acts like the respondent has done, the only Inference to be drawn is that the charge of adultery is based on sound grounds. This poor woman did not have a comfortable home, and her life was dull and devoid of excitement. If she turned to liquor and irregular conduct, it is nof surprising. She was on several occasions, out until 2 o’clock in the morning, and His Honour was unable to accept her explanation that she went out for long walks. Then she went to Moffltt’s house x\\iile co-re-spondent’s wife was away—to a house where stye had never been before. It was frequented by undesirable people, and the inference was obvious. The statement that her husband had left her unprovided for was not correct. He had provided her with lodgings and credit at a local store. It was also explained that Mrs Moffitt had invited

respondent to look after the children during her absence. This was incredible, seeing that respondent had never been to the house while Mrs Moffitt was there. Another factor was that heavy drinking was going on there and a woman tinder the influence of liquor lacked proper self-control. Corespondent’s explanation was not 'satisfactory. I find the charge of adultery proved, and make an order for a decree nisi, to be moved absolute within three months, with costs <a gainst the co-respondent on the highest concluded the Judge. CO-RESPONDENT DISCHARGED. A similar petition was lodged by Basil Rule (Mr Cooper) against Sarah Rule and V. J. Seerup (Mr Ongley). Petitioner in the box, said he was a blacksmith and had lived with his wife .and their three children until February, 1922, when his wife was granted a separation order and maintenance at 30/ per week. He fell into arrears with the payment of this, and was imprisoned for three months. When he was released he went to sec his wife at Upper Hutt to get his little boy, of whom he had custody. Ho asked her to agree to the cancellation of the maintenance order against him and she complied. He found she was pregnant and told her lie would have to get a divorce on the grounds of adultery. She confessed it and gave him.the name and address of co-respondent. Witness had gone to Taihape and interviewed corespondent, who, after consulting his solicitors, offered to pay the costs if the petitioner would apply for restitution of conjugal rights, as ho was getting married. This >ffer petitioner had refused.

His Honour remarkr/ that almost any man would rather pay a lump sum than be dragged through the divorce court, whether he was guilty or not, especially if he was about to be married. He would consider the whole case, but co-respondent would be dismissed with costs. Judgment was reserved.

WENT TO SOUTH AFRICAN WAR

Caurelia A. Shadbolt, (Mr Cooper), alleged desertion against Alfred Shadbolt, (whose whereabouts •were unknown) as ground for her petition. In evidence, petitioner said her husband had left her to go to the South African War, and she had not seen or heard of him since. A maintenance order had been granted her and a warrant for her husband’s arrest had, been issued, but it had never been executed.

Charles Shadbolt, petitioner’s son, gave evidence in support, and a decree nisi w r as granted to be moved absolute within three months.

ANOTHER HUSBAND WHO VANISHED. Ivy Monk (Mr Cooper) took action against Cecil Henry Monk, for divorce on the grounds of desertion. In giving: evidence, petitoner said her husband, as a result of drinking and other misdeeds, lost' his jockey’s license. He left her one night in December, 1919, and she had neverheard of him since. He had made no attempt to maintain her, and she and her children were supported by her father. ii*‘ Thomas Henry Oliver, Palmerston North, father of petitioner, gave corroborative evidence. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute in three months was granted, petitioner to have the interim custody of the children. A DESERTED HUSBAND. The next case was one hr which L. F. S. Smith, of Shannon, (Mr Ongley) sought a decree against his wife, D.

E. J. Smith, on tire ground of failure to comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights.

Petitioner said his wife had left him and gone to live with her mother. She had applied for a maintenance order against him, but it had been refused, and the magistrate had advised his wife to go back to him. She had not done so, despite witness’s entreaties. She had not answered his letters, and in April, 1919, he had taken restitution proceedings. He had seen his wife about ij, month ago, when she still refused to return to him. Bessie Smith, mother of petitioner, deposed having asked her son’s wife to go back to him, and to respondent having refused. Petitioner had always, so far as she knew, been a good husband to respondent. A decree nisi to be moved absolute within three months was granted, petitioner to have custody of the child of the marriage. “NEVER MADE A HOME FOR ME.” A decree nisi was granted Lena M. Beattie (Mr Jacobs) who sought dissolution of her marriage with Alexander Beattie on the grounds of adultery and desertion. Petitioner stated that her husband had never provided her with a home. After his return from the war, she had seen him, and he had promised to provide for her, but had not done so. When she commenced proceedings ho had made further promises, out nothing had come of them. As a result of certain anonymous letters, she had caused a search to be made of he birth records at Temuka, when evidence of the birth of an illegitimate child of her husband’s had been found. The co-respondent (not cited) was known to her. The father of the petitioner gave corroborative evidence, stating that he had had to provide petitioner with a home.

“CLEAR -£CT!” James Henry May (Mr Cooper) petitioned for an order against Alice (Theresa May (Mr Onglcy) for restltuconjugal rights. Petitioner said that ' before their marriage his wife was a widow, and he a widower. They had had "words” when he found it necessary to complain of his wife’s extravagance. On two occasions she had locked him out of the house, and she had told him to “clear out.” She then summoned him for maintenance, but was not present .when the hearing came on. She had mortgaged his furniture and purchased a property in her own name with the proceeds. At an interview with his wife and their respective solicitors; she suggested a separation, but the deed was never executed, because he felt he was “getting up in years” and did not want to lose her. Respondent had left and 'gone to Auckland. He lodged the petition because he wanted his wife back. The petition was granted the order to be obeyed within 14 days.