DIVORCE CASES HEARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17338, 9 December 1919, Page 7

DIVORCE CASES HEARD.

PETITION BY .HUSBAND. v JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT. JUSTIFIED IN LEAVING HOME. The adjourned divorce action, William Thomas Kemp, of Auckland (Mr. E. Mahony), v. Mary Ann Kemp, of Eltham (Mr. Fleming), was concluded before Mr. Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court yesterday. Desertion was alleged by the petitioner, who said he had provided a hom e for his wife in Auckland, but she i refused to live with him. I The Judge held that the respondent was I quite justified in refusing to live with the J petitioner owing to his relations with his : housekeeper. He decided in favour of the respondent, with costs on the higher scale. - JUDGE RESERVES DECISION. RESPONDENT TO BE EXAMINED. -Constructive desertion was alleged by Isaac Ringroso (Mr. Singer) in his petition against Flora Isabella Ringrose, which was heard by Mr. Justice Hosking. The petitioner said his wife was a half-casto Hindoo. While they were living at Kawakawa she started going out at night with another man. Petitioner frequently followed them to a shed in a lonelv place which they used to frequent. The Judge : Why did you not go in and surprise them? Petitioner: It was a risky thing to interfere with him. He was a" pretty severe sort of man. Continuing, petitioner said this went on 'or about two years. Finally, in August, 1914, he remonstrated with his i wife, and she told him she Would do what she liked, and it was no concern of his. He then left home. He had tried to get positive evidence of misconduct, and once employed private detectives, but without result. Evidence was given that before th petitioner left home respondent was frequently seen in company with the other man. It was also stated that when served with the divorce papers the respondent said it would have been better if her husband had left home sooner. The Judge said he did not think the evidence was sufficient. It was strange that the petitioner, if he believed his wife was misconducting herself, did not try to get a divorce on that ground. In a small Elate like Kawakawa evidence should not! ave been hard to get. Instead, he went on living with bis wife for two years, and then-left home. Now he came to Court and charged her with desertion. Mr. Sfeiger said his client was not a man of education. After his wife had made it impossible for him to live at home he took the only course that appeared open to him, and went away. Before doing so he made every endeavour to get direct evidence of his wife's misconduct, but failed. The Judge: ' T think I will ask the Solicitor-General to have this woman interviewed. A great many of these people ought to be brought into Court. I takedown a lot of things in these divorce cases and I do not believe half of them are true. Mr. Singer said he had no objection to the proposal, adding that if rjnoetioned the respondent would simply deny tne misconduct. ' The Judge said he would giv e his decision later. SEQUEL TO ASSAULT CASE. WIFE ATTACKED WITH AXE. A divorce was sought by Eva Eleanor Jessie Mahon (Mr. Singer) from Charles John Henry Mahon on tho ground of desertion. Th 0 petitioner said that about seven years ago her husband's conduct toward her became very violent, and early in 1913 he was arrested, and convicted of assaulting her and. attempting to commit suicide. He was ordered to enter into a bond to keep the peace. After that she would not live with him, and a vear later obtained a maintenance order against him, but he paid only £5. Later she heard he bad gone to America under an assumed name. In answer to the Judge, petitioner said her husband assaulted her with a tomahawk and tried to chop her head. Mr Singer said it was a murderous assault. It was- originally intended to charge him with attempted murder. J* decree nisi was granted, and a formal order was made for the payment of £20 costs.