MARRIAGES ANNULLED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17483, 29 May 1920, Page 8

MARRIAGES ANNULLED.

DECREES NISI GRANTED.

CASES OF MISCONDUCT.

LONG-DELAYED DIVORCE.

A number of undefended divorce cases were heard by Mr. Justice Cooper m.he Supreme Court yesterday. Somewhat unusual circumstances mroundedan application lor decree absolute by Mr. Gregory, on behalf of a indent in divorce proceedings whi had* been taken, 13 yea" ago. ™ Rhodes. Arthur Ween Winter being cUSndent. A decree nisi, to * absolute in three months w&lhen made Tho parties were married, in 18SJ, seven cMd°re P n being born, jhe youngest of whom is now 25 years of.age. Rtel)3 the Court proceedings in 1907, no steps £d been taken by either party.to the decree made final. Legally, therefor , thev continued to be married persons, untU yWerday, when, at the instigation of the respondent, the divorce WW effected 37/ years after the marriage. This step Hi taken under a provision Sh Eives a respondent pow to make such an application if the successful petitSer fails to do so within one month after the expiry of the three month *Uowed. .According to law, if either nartv in such circumstances had coaS marriage before the decree beabsolute they would have been guilty of bigamy, , ~

HUSBAND'S INFIDELITY. Misconduct was alleged against a «m----feSoWby his wife, during, the hearing of a petition by Harriett* ' BomMM* J F. W. Dickson), for the, dissolution of hr marriage with Henryl>and Rossel The petitioner gave Evidence that her husband? although in business «iKarangahaoo Road, had never contributed any SEt to her maintenance, wice.their marriaee in Auckland in 1910. On the .Milrt flf navine a business visit to SSS £» SFden? obtained a permit to w abided. He left for Sydney in February and had not returned. Pic? to his departure the parties were no on good terms. Petitioner aoanectod Sim of infidelity, when afterwards she found a letter in an old coat, of Riband's from a woman signing *™ « "your devoted wifie." Prior to the respondent going abroad, he had always bached when the petitioner charged him with misconduct. . A private -detective, formerly a member of the Auckland police force, stated that in consequence of certain complaints he had had the respondent's, business under observation. One of the girls in the shop was continually with the respondent, who .seemed very fond of her. fie had won the two sitting in the Domain embracing each other. . ... . Mr. Dickson produced a written admission from the respondent that he had misconducted himself several times with the girl during October, 1918. _ < ! His Honor granted a decree nisi, arid •custody of. the three children of till marriaee.

WIFE'S LABORIOUS'DUTIES. An unhappy second marriage was described during tie hearing of a petition bv Isabella Louis Tilly (Mr. Halt Skelton). for a divorce against William Henry Charles Tilly. • The petitioner stated that when she married the respondent on September 5, 1910, at Auckland, 6he was then a widow with six children. They were unhappy from the beginning of their wedded life. There was one child by their marriage. The Dirties lived together on a farm near Patumahoe for about two years. During that time the respondent made the petitioner feed the pigs and calves, milk the cows, keep the garden., carry all the firewood heme* and chop it, draw and cany water for farm and house use. This was in addition to her household duties. She had to do all that work up to within 10 hours of her confinement. She described herself as "practically a labourer." When the child was 12 days old, the respondent crumbled, because she had no£ resumed her duties. Three: days later, after a lit of brooding, and without saying &_ word, he smashed every dish in the kitchen, i and shortly afterwards he began to smash the furniture. • He threatened to "lay | out" the petitioner and all her children, l and constantly used filthy language in their ureeence. After two years of this life the petitioner left the respondent and look all the children with her. A daughter of petitioner's corroborated! her story. * 1 His Honor said that the respondent evidently had no regard for his wife's health or feelings. If he had had any defence his duty was to answer the charge made. These were unchallenged, and as the' respondent's violent and I dangerous behaviour had brought about the, separation, a decree nisi would be granted. '• i

health or feelings. If he had had any defence his dutv was to answer the charge made. These were unchallenged, and as the' respondent's violent and I dangerous behaviour had brought about the , separation, a decree nisi would be granted. ___: ' •' OTHER DECREES ISSUED. Henrietta Elizabeth Rridgen (Mr. J. F. j W. Dickson), petitioned for a divorce from Cecil Bndgen, of Pio Pio, on the] ground of adultery. I Evidence was given for the petitioner that the marriage'took place in London in 1911. Two years later tho parties came to New Zealand. In 1917, petitioner i found two affectionate letters to her husband from a girl, with whom, 03 his 1 wife* he afterwards spent a night' in a hotel in Eobibn Street. I Corroborative evidence was'given and a decree nisi was granted. A divorce on the grounds of adultery was sought by Eva May Ellis (Mr. J. P. W. Dickson), against. Alfred Morley Ellis. The pWties were married ia St. Matthew's Church. Auckland,' on November 23, 1912. There was one child.

Mr. R. A. Singer, solicitor, gave evidence that the respondent had instructed him to appear and produce a written admission by respondent that he had committed adultery on March 17 last. A decree nisi was granted. Misconduct was the ground upon which a decree nisi was granted to Olive Theresa Carpenter (Mr. Singer), against Albert! Edward Carpenter. The parties weroi married in Auckland in 1911. There were! two children. After the respondent's re-1 turn _ from the front,* petitioner received 1 certain letters from a woman in Walling-1 ton, stating that she had given birth to 1 a child, of which the respondent was tho father, and that she had been unaware that he was a married man. Petitioner immediately left her husband and went to her mother's house, where the respondent afterwards admitted misconduct. ' In tho case of Sarah Rowe (Mr. Singer) against. Thomas Kowe, desertion was proved under sub-Section 1 of the Divorce Amendment Act, 1917. The marriage' took place in Auckland in 1097. There were three children. The parties lived opart, petitioner having obtained a separation and maintenance order against her husband some years ago. The respondent had been .convicted in'the lower Court for failure to maintain his wife For several yearly had given her no'money A decree nisi was accordingly granted