UNHAPPY MARRIAGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14766, 23 August 1911, Page 8

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES.

A DAY IN THE DIVORCE

COURT.

MERCHANT'S DISAPPEARANCE

HANGING BOUND MUSIC HALLS.

Several divorce cases -were heard before Mr. Justice Edwards at the Supreme Court yesterday. *

Respondent in the case Kathleen Agnes Edwards (Mr. Napier) v. Arthur Laekio Edwards was formerly a well-known merchant in Auckland, and had quite a reputation in musical circles. He left New Zealand for 'London in 1901, and had not returned.

Mr. Napier said it had taken seven months to traco respondent, who was now hanging about London musical halls. His fall was due to drink.

The petitioner, a well-dressed woman of youthful appearance, said she was married in 1892 in Auckland, and after marriage 6he lived with respondent in Auckland. There was one child, a girl, which had been born on September 1, 1893, and who was now in witness's custody. Some time after the child was born her husband went to England, and returned to Auckland three years later. Sho had understood that he would only be away six months. Prior to leaving he sold the furniture, and witness had to live with her parents, as respondent did not send her any money while he was away, nor did ho leave any with her. He returned in 1898, and lived with petitioner at her parents' home, but did not contribute anything towards her support. His partner, Mr. Gilfillan, had insisted on respondent dissolving partnership, on account of his intemperate habits. Her husband resumed business as an agent for British manufacturers, but the business was not a success. . He loft again for England in June, 1901, and said he would only be away for six months. He did not return, but corresponded with petitioner for two years. He had now ceased to write, and was not contributing towards her support. To His Honor: Respondent had not asked petitioner to join him in England. Ho had not written to his daughter, but had simply abandoned them both. John Boyd Gilfillan, merchant, carrying on business in Auckland, said he had been in partnership with respondent. The partnership was dissolved in February, 1896. The first reason was because witness found out that respondent had private debts amounting to" £800 or £900. Respondent's habits were often irregular and he had frequently to be sent home m a cab. To his knowledge petitioner had no means of support. His Honor said he could not grant a decree until Mr. Napier proved formally the service of notice of the proceedings on respondent in England.

A DECREE GRANTED. In a case, Adelaide Matilda Hyland v. Edward Hyland, petitioner said she was married to respondent in Sydney in 1899, and had lived three years with him. He was employed in several warehouses. About nine years ago they came to New Zealand, and respondent left her in 1905.She had not heard of his whereabouts since then. . A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months,- with costs on the.lowest scale. • ' LEFT FOR SYDNEY. ;; The parties in the case John Henry Rayner (J. B. Johnston) v. Katherine Rayner and Percy Wakefield Selly, were married on September 27, 1896, in Auckland. Petitioner is l a plumber, residing in Eden Terrace, and there were three children by the marriage., In January of this year respondent left to go to Helensville for a holiday. A few days after she , left petitioner received a letter from his wife, in which she stated she } had left him for ever. From inquiry.',he found that she had gone to Sydney with a man named Selly, who had been acquainted with the parties in Auckland. Petitioner stated that he followed them .by the next boat, and met them in the street in Sydney. They had a few words, and he was handed a 'letter from his wife and from co-respondent, in which they stated that they could not live without each other. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in ' three months, costs on the lowest scale being allowed. '- • ADRIFT IN THE WORLD. In the case John Fitzell (Mr. J. R. Lundon) v. Jane Elizabeth Fitzell and Arthur William Yates, evidence was given to the effect, that the parties were married in 1885 in Gisborne. _ Petitioner, who is a farmer, ■ lived •. # with his wife on a farm near Gisborne for 14 years, and there were four children of the marriage. Whilst there he i made over all his property to his wife and children in case anything should happen to him. In .1899 he was ordered by his wife to clear out, and she lived with the next door neighbour named Love. Petitioner went to work on the railway line, and he afterwards took charge of the children in 1 Napier. His wife • returned to him in 1901, bringing with her a child the father of whom she said was a man named Love. She had sold the property and squandered the proceeds with Love. They agreed to live together again, but later on after receiving a letter from Love claiming the ■'- child, she went back to Gisborne. She took all the children with her, and petitioner sent her portion of his wages. Petitioner took up land at Papatoitoi in January last, and in June last ho was arrested for wife desertion. His wife did not appear in Court, and the case was ~ dismissed. At that time his wife was living in Auckland with a man named Yates, and he had ascertained that she had had two children to him. v " ■ - * . His Honor, in granting a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months, said ho would not allow costs—a man who left his wife adrift in the world for anyone to pick up could not complain if she went to live with other men.

A FALSE FRIEND. A middle-aged man named Frank Turner (Mr. Hackett), employed as a coppersmith at Onehunga, applied for a dissolution of his marriage with Violet Sweet Turner,' Sydney Rowe being named as the co-respondent. The parties were married in January, 1903. Petitioner stated that in February last his wife left him. In August of last year he had occasion to warn her against Rowe being allowed to visit the house. His wife was ill in September, 1910, and during that illness Rowe.carae to the house. Ho was given permission to see respondent. Petitioner said he saw certain familiarity between respondent and co-respondent without 'their knowledge that he was looking on. The two were now living together ill Auckland.

A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. -

WIFE WALKED OFF.

David Barry (Mr. A. S. Skelton), a butcher residing at Penrose, petitioned for the dissolution of his marriage with 'Emily Barry. He stated that they were married on December 26, 1896, and they had several children. A man named Walter, Oswald Whitby lived with them till February of last year, when petitioner told him to leave, not for any reasons connected with his wife. His wife did not favour this course, and left on March 1. 1910, with the five children. His Honor : It seems monstrous that you should have allowed your wife and children to walk off, and not take any steps to bring them back. Petitioner said his sister-in-law received a letter from Hamilton stating that his wife was living with Whitby there, and passing under the name of Whitby. Aftec further evidence had been heard, the case was adjourned till Tuesday nest, so that a proper affidavit in regard to proof of service might be filed.