UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7293, 1 August 1930, Page 5

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

Petitions in Divorce Before Supreme Court

A number of undefended divorce #uits came before the Hon. Mr. Justice Blair in tho Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday. Desertion Alleged Olga Foster, of Pahiatua (Mr. D. M. Page) petitioned for a divorco from John Mason Foster, of Sydney, on the grounds of desertion. Petitioner, in' evidence, stated that sho was married in New Zealand, but her husband was now in Sydney. Since he had left she had been in New Zcaland all the time. Her marriage took place in Pahiatua in 3920. They lived subsequently in Napier and Auckland. In December, 1925, she went to Wanganui, where she took up a position as ■ housekeeper owing to her husband beine out of work. Ho stayed there with her for a while and then returned to Auckland. Later, she heard ho had gone to Sydney. She had received some maintenance from him—about £3O altogether—over a period of 41 years. Muriel Nielsen, sister of petitioner, said sho knew that Foster had left his wife in 1926, that he had not come back to Now Zealand and that Mrs. lostcr had supported herself. A decree nisi with interim custody of the children, to be made absolute after three months, was granted. Desertion was tho ground on which Maud Victoria Collins, of Danncvirko, asked for divorce from Albert Charles Holt Collins, chemist’s assistant and bookseller, now of parts unknown. Mr. Dorrington appeared for petitioner. Petitioner, from’the witness box, said sho married defendant on June 3, 1918, at Levin. After that they lived at Danncvirko, and there was one child. On August 16, 1922, respondent disappeared from Danncvirko and she had not seen him since. She had had to support herself and was now librarian •at. Danncvirko. H. S. M, Quigloy, of Danncvirko, said he had known petitioner since 1920. Collins had left Danncvirko in 1922 and had not been seen there since. A decree nisi, with custody of the child, was granted and may be moveo absolute after three months. Desertion was also alleged by Irene Nellie Marychurch (Mr. Grant), when asking for divorce from Albert l’ercival Marychurch, labourer, of Shannon. Petitioner told his Honour that she was married on January 6, 1925, at Palmerston North. Early in 1927 she came to live with her mother, applied to the Court for a maintenance order and secured £1 a week. Her husband had not paid anything, however. He went away and had not returned. Mrs. Mellor, mother of petitioner, said her daughter had been living with her since 1927. The husband had never I con near and her daughter had received no money from him. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted, .petitioner being given custody of the younger child. On Grounds of Adultery Leonard Maskery (Mr. Cooper) petitioned for divorce from Harriett Jane Maskery on the grounds of adultery. John Smith Mc-Neilly, land agent, of Palmerston North, was named as corespondent. In answer to his Honour, Mr. Cooper stated that Mrs., Maskery’s solicitors had written stating that she did nor, want them to proceed with any defence. As far as MeNeilly was concerned, he could not bo found, and two warrants for disobedience of maintenance orders were out for him.

Petitioner said lie was a joiner by trade and lived in Palmerston North. On January 33. 1916, lie was married to respondent (a Miss Coley), and they lived at Mangawcka, Levin and Pal : merston North. There were two children of the union.' In 1929 Mrs. Maskery had a tea-room and pastrycook's business and they used to live in rooms above’ fhe 'shop. She used to go out for exercise in the evenings and he never suspected anything wrong until the end of November, when he saw a Toport in the papers of a separation ease brought by Mrs. McNeilly against co-respondent. He then taxed his wife about the fact that she was the other lady mentioned in the proceedings, ana she admitted it. There was a Jotter produced, written by McNeilly to respondent, and it started off “My little Treasure." . As a result, witness and his wife separated, Mrs. Maskery going to Auckland. A deed of separation was entered into, one of thp conditions being that she was to have nothing more to do with McNeilly. Later, witness went to Auckland and' saw in respondent's room the photograph of another man called Dale, whom he also met. On his return to Palmerston North ho received two telegrams for his wife, which he opened. They were from Dale. He went straight back to Auckland, McNeilly going on the same train. On arrival at Auckland he presented his wife with the telegrams, handing them over to her on condition that she gave up the small daughter to his custody. This she did, and he returned to Palmerston North. Later, witness heard that his wife was at an hotel in Fcilding and admitted she had come down from Auckland with McNeilly. AVitness went over to Fcilding and saw his wife and McNeilly arrive together in a car at the hotel. She went up to her bedroom, where witness was waiting. “I told her I had caught her at last," added witness, "and now had enough evidence for a divorce. She replied that, that would suit her nicely." AVitness brought forward v man who said he had seen McNeilly leaving her room that morning, and she did not deny it. Petitioner said he had seen his wife recently and she had said nothing about going on with her defence of the divorce action. She haa remarked that the solicitors were not going to have any. more money out of her.

Phillip Hunter, land agent, of Palmerston North, said that prior to June, 1929, he and McNeilly were in partnership. Ho knew Mrs. Maskery, who was a frequent visitor at the office and used to ring up often. On March 2S, 1929, Mrs. Maskery was in the office in the afternoon from 2.30 to 4 o’clock. Hhc was in the back room with McNeilly and the door was closed. Late in the afternoon he went into the room and saw McNeilly sitting on the same side of the table as Mrs. Maskery. He thought McNeilly should have been on the other side of the table. That night witness returned to the'office and found McNeilly there with no light on. Witness lit light and noticed that. McNeilly was /rather agitated. Ho asked witness to fix up an agreement and, •while witness was doing that, McNeilly disappeared into, the other room. Witness followed hjm a moment or two Inter, but could not find him. Two shutters on the window’were open and,

as. witness looked through, he saw McNeilly and Mrs. Maskery getting into McNeilly's car outside. The car then went off at 30 miles an hour. He had seen them on numerous occasions in each other’s company. A decree nisi, to bo moved absolute after three months, was granted. were entered against co-respondent. Conjugal Rights A petition for restitution of conjugal rights was presented by Mary Falconer, of Palmerston North (Mr. Belling). D. G. Falconer, traveller, of Palmerston North, Was the respondent. Petitioner said she was married in 1925 and Jived in Christchurch and Palmerston North afterwards. Last Faster her husband left her and had refused, to come back. He had written: "I cannot and will not return to you." Petitioner said she wanted him back. The order was granted, Falconer being given 14 days iii nihieli to obey.