DIVORCE CASES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12281, 27 May 1903, Page 3

DIVORCE CASES.

I ' «p" At tho Supreme Court yesterday Mr. Justice Conolly, sitting without a, jury, heard a ; number of undefended divorce cases. | AN ADJOURNED CASE. i The first case called was Baptista Ross v. i Frances Ross. The case was partly heard j at last sessions, but was adjourned, His j Honor requiring to be satisfied that there j was no cause for respondent's desertion of petitioner. Mr. McGregor appeared for the 5 petitioner, and called Mary Ann Swan, re- .! spondent's half-sister, who spoke to responi dent living in Wakefield - street with Michael Heath. She had some conversation with respondent, who said she had left lioss because he would not give her the handling of a shilling, and stopped her credit at the store because she was too extravagant. She said chat petitioner was never cruel or unkind to her in any way. She also said that Ross, being a foreigner, she could not understand him, nor make him understand. Ross provided provisions after stopping her credit. Petitioner knew that she was going away, but did not know the day. Ha was away at work at the time, and when he returned at night she was gone. Charles Henry Leikis stated that j he lived at Coromandel in 1897, close to the j residence of Ross, who treated his wife very ; , well. If Ross had ill-treated his wife wit- i ess must have known it, as he lived next j j door but one to him. Ross was a sober, I j steady man. His Honor granted a decree j j nisi, with costs, decree to be made absolute j in three months. ! AN EARLY MARRIAGE. ! Jane Christian Bates v. Stuart Frederick I Bates, application for dissolution of marriage j on the ground of desertion for over five years, j Mr. H.anna, who appeared for petitioner, ■ | stated that tho parties wero married at tho 1 registry office in 1895. Respondent did not j then appear to have any means, or to have j been doing any work to support his wife, and | they lived with petitioner's mother for some j time. The husband went away in 1897, and | petitioner received letters from him ' from Samoa and San Francisco, and finally a remarkable letter from Lewiston, Idaho, which Mr. Hanna read, as follows:—"Dear Miss Fletcher,You will notice that I address you by your maiden name, the name you will have to be in future. I have been granted a divorce, also custody of the child, so you are free to marry again if you like. If I hear of you using my name again I will advertise the divorce in the New Zealand papers.—(Signed) Stuart Bates." Mr. Hanna said all attempts made to trace ths respondent failed, and advertisements i had been inserted in various American papers ; in accordance with His Honor's directions. Jane Christian Bates stated that she was married to respondent on September 5, 1895. The marriage certificate was then put in. His Honor (examining the certificate): Do you mean to say that, you wero only 14- years of age at the time of your marriage? Witness: Yes. His Honor: No wonder it turned out badly. The husband was 24 and tho wife 14. Continuing, witnes# said that after the marriage she and her husband lived with her mother, until her father assisted him to start a store at Kennedy's Bay. Witness did not go to Kennedy's Bay, respondent stating that he did not like her to live there. He came to town at intervals, and occasionally contributed small sums towards her support, but paid notTTiug regularly. A child was horn on August 14, 1896, and shortly after this witnoss saw a solicitor with the object of compelling respondent to maintain her. He promised to do so, but did not carry out his promise. Witness last saw her husband on November 16, 1897. when he said he was going to Coromandel. Shortly after she received a letter from respondent from Samoa. The only reason he gave in this for leaving was that lie was in debt in Auckland. She received two letters from San Francisco. Since lie had left her he had sent her £7 altogether, in three instalments, all within three months of his 'leaving. The last letter, received on September 3, 1899, was j that read by Mr. Hanna. ] Jane Alpha Fletcher, mother of petitioner, stated that Bates gave no indication that lie was going to leave her daughter. Ho left her house on November 17, 1897, saying that he was going t o Coromandel. Since that I date she bad not heard of him. Respondent and his wFfe lived on the best of terms. Witness had never heard him complain of his wife's conduct. His Honor: How came you to agree to her marriage, she being only a child of 14? Witness: We thought perhaps it would be for the best. His Honor: Why? What do you mean in thinking it would be for the best? Witness: She seemed wrapped un in Mr. Bates, and we thought it would be for the best. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. A HOKIANGA CASE. Elizabeth Jane Phillips v. Geo. William Alexander Phillips: A petition for dissolui tion on the ground of desertion for over five years. Mr. E. W. Burton appeared for the petitioner, who stated that she was married on August 16, 1892, at Hokianga. His Honor : These boy and girl marriage? don't seem to turn out very well. Petitioner was only 16 and respondent 22 at the time of the marriage. Petitioner, in further evidence, stated that after the marriage she and her husband sometimes lived with her parents and sometimes in a whare on the gumfields. Respondent at times went away, leaving petitioner to be supported by her parents. In February, 1896, respondent was sent to prison for horse-stealing, am. witness then went to service to maintain herself. When respondent came out of gaol in .Tune, 1896, lie promised to make a. home in the Waikato, but had not done so. He had never sent her any money, and she had maintained herself in domestic service. In November last year she saw respondent, and he paid be bad tried to get a separation and had spent a lot of money on it, and there was no use in their living together. _ The Rev. Canon Nelson stated that petitioner was in service in his house and had been so since August, 1900. John Magee, petitioner's brother, also gajye evidence, and John Morrison Russell, bailiff, stated that he served respondent with the writ in the present case. Ho W&s then billiard-marker in the Waitemata Hotel. He laughed, and said " I thought it would come to this." His Honor granted decree nisi, with costs, to be made absolute in three months. A FARMER'S PETITION. Ernest William Webb v. Lucy Webb (respondent) and Donald Farquhar McLeod (corespondent): Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for petitioner. There was no appearance for respondent or corespondent. Petitioner, in answei to Mr. Martin, stated that he was a farmer at Mangakahia, near Whangarei. Ho married respondent in December, 1895. Tiiev lived near Kawakawa, Bay of Islands. He used to go to Mangakahia to work, leaving his wife with her mother. It was then she l>ecanio acquainted with co-respondent, He then went to Puhipuhi. About four years apo his wife went away one day to Whangarei to see an aunt. . When witness saw the aunt in Whangarei she told him that his wife had gone away. Ho made inquiries, but for some time could get no reliable information. When he did discovei where his wife was lie instituted proceedings. Donald Mc Leod, saddler, Otahuhu, brother of co-respondent, gave evidence that respondent and co-respondent were living togetlioi 1 as man and wife at Nrtherton, near Paeroa, and have now two children. William Porter, carrier, spoke to seeing respondent and co-respondent together in ' Queen-street and at his house several times. His Honor granted dccree nisi, with costs, 1 to be made absolute in three months. ; . GONE TO KLONDIKE. Alice Mario Davis v. Geo. Davis: Petition ' for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. Mr. Baxter appeared for peti- • tioner. The petitioner stated that sho was married to- respondent at Thames on December 28, 1897. Prior to the marriage he • suggested going to Klondike, but as that was against her wish he promised not to go. : After the marriage he changed his mini ' and suggested that she should go home to ' her people. She last saw him on January 10, 1898, when she was leaving for Geelong j ; to go to her people. She got a letter from ( petitioner written in Auckland a fow days ' after she left, in which he said he was leav- '>' ing for Klondike within half-an-hour. She ' had not heard from him since. She had writs ten to the address lie gave her, but the letters ! were returned. She had made every in- ' quiry' as to his whereabouts, but had failed ' to trace bun. His Honor: How long did you know him before you married ? Witness: Only a month or two. 6 Richard Davis, carter, respondent's father, t said his son left Auckland on January 22, ~ ' 1898, and he had not heard of him since. He . had made every effort to trace him. He l", advertised in every paper in Klondike, but ■{ could not find whether he was dead or alive. His Honor granted decree nisi, with costs, I) remarking that lie supposed it was no use i, ; to grant costs. { i AN UNSUCCESSFUL PETITION. i Dinah Stephens v. Daniel Goodwin Stern phens: Application for dissolution of mar- >. riage on the ground of desertion. Mr. iield

appeared for the petitioner. In answer to Mr. Field petitioner stated that she married respondent on August 21, 1894, at the registry office, Auckland. Two days after the marriage she went back to Aratapu. She had a home there and did not wish to break it up till her husband had a home in. Auckland for her. She saw him again in Sep-1 tember, 1894, in November, 1895, and in August, 1897. She lived at Aratapu all that time. Each time she saw him he promise" to make a home for her. His Honor said the petition alleged that desertion took place three days after the marriage. Surely there was no desertion then, for petitioner said she went to Aratapu because she did not wish to break up her home. If it was desertion at all it was desertion by her. Petitioner, in further evidence, said she received a number of letter from respondent between the marriage and June, 1897, but she had not seen nor heard of him since she saw him in August, 1897. She had endeavoured to trace him, but failed. She nevei got a shilling from him. Petitioner's son by a former marriage and son-in-law gave evidence. Mr. Field: That's my case, Your Honor. His Honor: It's no case at all. There is no evidence of desertion or of attempt at desertion. They were married and lived together for two days, and then petitioner went away to what she called her home. After that she came to Auckland several times to see him and went away contented. The petition was dismissed. A BUTCHER'S PETITION. John Mil ford Sykes v. Mary Sykes (respondent) and Walter Pritchard and John «Vrm- j strong (co-respondents): Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. Mr. Burton appeared for petitioner, who, on being called, said he was a butcher working in Auckland. He married the respondent before the registrar in Auckland j in May, 1881. They lived together in Auck- j land, Taupaki and Northern Wairoa. There i were three children, but only one now alive. In 1896 he returned to Auckland, and in 1897 he heard that his wife had been misbehaving with Walter Pritehard, a cabdriver. He charged her with it. She diet not deny it and they separated. In October last he found her at the house of the other co-respondent (Armstrong) at Taumaranui. He asked her to come back and live with him, but she declined.. William Alfred Barton, a wharf labourer, gave evidence as to respondent and Pritchard living together in Alexandra-street about four years ago, and another witness named Alexander Macdonald said respondent told him she was living with Pritohard. Margaret Ellen Sykes, petitioner's daugh.taid she saw her mother about the end of last year at Taumaranui, where she lived in John Armstrong's house and was known as Mrs. Armstrong. About a month ago she saw her mother and Armstrong on the wharf at Auckland, and they said they were leaving for Wellington. She saw the steamer off. His Honor said he thought the case against Armstrong had been made out, which was. sufficient to grant decree nisi. He was not satisfied that the case against Pritehard had been made out. There was strong suspicion, but nothing more. He would not grant costs, as petitioner seemed indifferent about it when his wife left him. A STORY OF NEGLECT. Lydia Peat v. David Hendry Peat An application for dissolution of marriage on tho ground of desertion. Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for petitioner and said it was a story of continuous neglect on the husband's part. Lydia Peat, the petitioner, said she married respondent on December 50, 1890, at Auckland. There were three children by the marriage, all living. Respondent, who was a miner, would not work, and up to 1897 witness' mother assisted to support her. He went to Coromandel in February, 1897, and she had not seen him since. In September. 1897, Mr. Brabant, S.M., granted an order for 15s a week for the support of the children, under which £3 had been paid. She did not ask for an order for her own support. Sho went out to service. She haci not heard of respondent since the end of 1397. George Urqxihart, clerk in the S.M. Court, and A. E. T. Devore, solicitor, gave evidence showing that respondent had not obeyed the order of the _ Magistrate's Court for the support of his children, and that his whereabouts at present were unknown. His Honor granted decree nisi, with costs, the wife to have custody of tho children. The Court at this stage adjourned till ten o'clock this morning.