MARRIAGE FAILURES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20722, 15 November 1930, Page 14

MARRIAGE FAILURES.

MANY DIVORCES GRANTED. / STORIES OF UN H A PPI N ESS. 'DRINKING IN KING COUNTRY. WHISKY AT 25s A BOTTLE. / Undefended divorce petitions were heard /in the Supreme Court yesterday unci nearly 70 decrees nisi, to become effective after three months, were granted by Mr. Justice Herdman and Mr. Justice Smith. The proceedings were for the most part very brief, but many fitories of domestic unhappiness were disclosed. An orgy of drunkenness in a nolicence district was described by Olive May Haigh (Mr. Matthews) in support of her petition for a divorce from Percy Haigh, whom she married in Auckland in Mt/rch, 1916.

Tho petitioner stated that when they were living at Taumnrunui her marriage, by which there were three children, had been made very unhappy by her hus band's, continnal drinking. A group of his friends formed what was known as the "Tui Club," with headquarters at her home. It was the practice to get in abdut five to ten gallons of beer each week-end and gather around the barrel until everybody became drunk. If any were still sober they would become drunk by paying 25s for a bottle of whisky.

Mr./ Justice Smith: How often did these carousals take place ? Petitioner: Every week-end. In the last 12 months I was with my husband there was a liquor bill for £75. Comment by Judge. Continuing her evidence, petitioner said her husbind used to knock her about and punch her face whenever he felt inclined. He continually abused her and to support herself and her children she worked at dressmaking. Her husband began drinking abbut three years after her marriage. At Easter, 1925, she suffered a nervous breakdown and came to Auckland. Her husband sent her money and promised to give up drink if she returned, which she did in 1927. For five or six weeks her husband remained sober, but when they returned to Auckland ho broke out again. Ho used to drink every day, with a "spree" each week-end. He ultimately left her, and in February, 1929, she obtained a separation order on tho grounds of drunkenness and cruelty. Since then he had been to see tho children in a

drunken state. I Corroborative evidence was given by petitioner's step-brothor, who said ho had frequently endeavoured to protect his Bister. " The evidence establishes the fact that a man can be an habitual drunkard in tho King Country," remarked His Honor. A decree nisi was granted. " Excessive Drunkenness." The excessive drunkenness of the husband was alleged to be the cause of the unhappiness in her marriage by Clarice Ifea Coral Millson (Mr. Schramm), who petitioned against Thomas E. Millson. Petitioner said trouble arose with her husband at Tailiapo when she complained of his drinking habits. Her husband had told her to go away'in 1924 and she had supported herself in Auckland ever since. A decree nisi was granted. Adultery and habitual drunkenness were the grounds on which Sarah Jane Jarnie«on petitioned against William Jamieson, whom she married in 1909. There were two children. Petitioner said she had parted from her husband and taken him back four times following his promises to reform, but ho had never done so. Ho

had posed as a single man and epent his ' mdney on drink and other women. In tho past 10 years she had not received more than £1 a week from him. She had taken out two separation orders, one in 1925 and another in 1929. She had taken her husband back after the former but he was £BO in arrears on tho last order. f A decree nisi was granted. " Most Polished Man."

A decree nisi was granted to Ethel RoyChatterji (Mr. Matthews), who petitioned against Stanley W. Roy-Chatterji on the grounds of desertion. Counsel said respondent was an Anglo-Indian, very highly connected in England, and one of tho most -polished men ho had met. In evidence petitioner said sho was married to respondent in May, 1926. He wan a salesman for a city firm but he provided nothing toward her maintenance. He did not return home on October 22, 1926. He had been drinking heavily and, although she later made an appointment with him, he did not keep it and fjave no proper explanation. In tho folowing week he left his position in Auckland and went to Wellington. He never contributed anything to her maintenance or to that of her child. The ground of adultery was successfully pleaded by Alice Elizabeth o'Grady (Mr. Sullivan) in her petition against Francis Mitchell O'Grady, whom she married in October, 1925. Evidence was given by inquiry agents whom petitioner had engaged, one of whom secured lodging at tho houso in Ponsonhy Koad where respondent lived. A decree nisi Was granted. Evidence that misconduct with another woman had been admitted by her husband was given by Florenco Ford (Mr. Dickson), who petitioned against Henry Thomas Ford. A decree nisi was granted. Lived Apart For 27 Years. After having lived apart from his wife, Mary Francis Wake, for 27 years, Theophilus Wako (Mr. W. Anderson) sought, divorce from her on tho ground of separation. He gave evidence that tho marriago took place in 1889 and that in 1903 they had agreed to separate and had lived apart ever since. A decree nisi was granted. Arthur Eraser (Mr. Weir) sought divorce from Esther Elizabeth Fraser, to whom ho was married in February, 1918, on tho ground that sho had deserted him six years ago Ho said his wife left him on March 2, 1924, when two polieemeu came to the place, and she declined to live thfro again. He was 23 years older than she. Asked if lie had tried to get hor back again, he said he had lost her address. After hearing other evidence His Honor granted a decree nisi.

Excessive drunkenness and cruolty wore charged against Walter fl. Pearce by his •wife, Olive Pearce (Mr. Pice), "His first drinking bout was on our wedding day," said petitioner, who added that he often knocked her about and used violent language to her when lie was drunk. Tho parties were married in July, 1914, and there were three children. A son gave evidence that, ho had seen his father knock his mother about frequently ever since ho could remember. A decree nisi was granted. A decree nisi was granted to Pero Harawira (Mr. llutler), against To Piwhi Harawira on the ground of misconduct. Evidence was given that the parties were married in 1898, and that the respondent left, petitioner in 19M " Drinks All His Wages," He drinks all his wages—every penny ho earns," said Eva Maud Muldoon (Mr. King), who sought divorce from John Wesley Muldoon. Sho said her husband had not supported her, and had been habitually drinking ever since their marriage in 1923. After corroborative evidence had been given a decree nisi was issued.

My husband made no protest, but Memed rather relieved when I said 1 would goawav and earn rny own living," toid Murifel Emma Alice Coon (Mr. Sin-

ger). She sought divorce on the ground of mutual separation from William Coon. She said they were married in May, 1919, and had two children. Her husband persisted in going out at nights and refusing to take her with him. When, in 1925, she said she would go and earn her own living, he said he did not mind as long a.s ho had the children. A decree nisi was granted. After 34 years of married life Margaret Dupree (Mr. Ilogben) sought dissolution of the mariiage she contracted with Jesse Arthur Dupree in England '.n December, 1896. She said they came to New Zealand in 1910, and returned to England on a visit in 1925. The respondent became ill there, and petitioner returned to New Zealand in January, 1924, on the understanding that iier husband would follow a few weeks later, lie had not done so, and had not answered letters from her and her parents. A decree nisi was granted. Sequels to Separation. Mutual separation or the existence of a separation order was successfully pleaded and decrees nisi were granted to the petitioners in the following cases:— Florence Elizabeth Brannigan (Mr. Vialoux) against John H. Brannigan; Mary lieid (Mr. East) against James Bowie Beid; Margaret Alice Dare (Mr. Gotdstine) against Henry Joseph Dare; Lily Margaret flobbs (Mr. Blomfield) against, Arthur Hobbs; Albert Rattira (Mr. Bennett) against Evelyn C. Rarnrn; Annie Christina Stewart (Mr. Singer) against Donald Lindsay Stewart ; Daisy Louisa Oag (Mr. Singer) against Georee Alexander Oag; Constance J. R. Sheath (Mr. Bees) against Alan Basil Sheath; Sophia Ellen Watson (Mr. Coat.es) against Christmas H. Watson; Hugh Boston (Mr. against Maggie Boston; Flor ence Elizabeth Blanche Jennings (Mr. Matthews) against John Stanley Jennings; Florence Hilda Carter (Mr. Matthews) , against Stephen W. Carter; Bertha Cecilia Brennan (Mr. Schramm) against John Jarnes Brennan; Gladys Roberta Eighan (Mr. Schramm) against John Eighan; Florence Jane (Mr. Matthews) against Harry Jane; Lydia Corkill (Mr. Matthews) against Charles Corkill; Edley Albert Yates (Mr. Scott) against. Phoebe Ann Yales (Mr. Dickson): Ellen Tobin (Mr. Shelton) against James William Tobin; Mavis Eileen Moody (Mr. Skelton) against Ernest Trevor Moody. The petition of Louis Abe Raynes (Mr Terry) against Annie Irene Raynes was granted subject to the filing of an affidavit Other Grounds Succeed. Decrees nisi were granted in the following cases on the ground of adultery:— Gladys C. Drinnon (Mr. Fawcett) against Alfred W. Drinnon; John Gibson (Mr. Fiddes) against Sarah-Ellen Gibson and Edward Grey, co-respondent. Decrees nifei were granted to the following on the ground that the respondent had failed to comply with an order of the Court for the restitution of conjugal rights:—William Lyndon Bennett (Mr. King) against Margaret Grant Bennett; Charles E. E. Beddoes (Mr, Stevens) against Beatrice H. T. Beddoes; William Oscar Over (Mr. Maxwell Walker) against Olive Emily L. Over; Frederick Luther Thomas (Mr. Vallanco) against Lilian Rose Thomas; Margarete P. Webster (Mr. Singer) against John Leonard Webster; Agnes Barley (Mr. Singer) against Alfred Goqgh Barley; William Albert Clarke (Mr. Singer) against Mabel Annie Clarke; Ailsa Beryl Jenkins (Mr. Hart) against Lancelot Heath Jenkins; Cedric M. Taylor (Mr. Ray) against Nelle Taylor; Ernest Edward Naulls (Mr. Matthews) against Julia Doruford Naulls; Benjamin W. Stubbing (Mr. Schramm) against Charlotte Stubbing; Vivian George Smith (Mr. Schramm) against Myrtle Milica Smith. Cases of Desertion. On the ground of desertion decrees nisi, to be made or moved absolute after three months, were made in the following cases:—Elsie Marion Price (Mr. Hon;J against Athol Graham B. Price; Marie V. E. Llewellyn (Mr. Mackay) against IT. E. A. Llewellyn; Gladys Alary Coltman (Mr. Hore) against William H. D. Coltruan; Samuel George McMechan (Mr. Turner) against Christina King McMechan; Frederich Martin Pasley (Mr. Jordan) against Elsie Ada Pasley; Edwin Henry Mason Smith (Mr. C. A. Sneddon) against Ada Smith; Frederick B. Kitson (Mr. Haddow) against Amelia Kitson; Robert Crump (Mr. Singer) against Marguerite M. J. Crump; Elizabeth M. Pollard (Mr. Jordan) against Charles J. Pollard; Silvia Zillah Plurnb Mr. Goode) against Alfred Lewis Plumb; Ethel Maude Thomas (Mr. Moody) against Howard James Thomas; Donnlda Lilian Von Sturmer (Mr. Matthews) against Kenneth John Von Sturmer; Edna Mavis Anderson (Mr. Schramm) against Harry Anderson; Elsie Vnrna Bowden (Mr. Dickson) against Alexander John Bowden; Charles Schade (Mr. Schramm) against Elizabeth Annie Schade; Florenco Louisa Laurie (Mr. Skelton) against Charles T. Laurie. HUSBANDS AND WIVES. RESTITUTION OF RIGHTS. ORDERS FOR RETURN. _ Orders for the restitution of conjugal rights within stated periods were granted to a number of petitioners by Mr. Justice Herdman and Mr. Justice Pmith in the Supremo Court yesterday. Alleging that her husband refused to let her go back to live with him, Veronica Grace Davis (Mr. Singer) asked that her husband, George Joseph Davis, be ordered to return to her. There were two children of the marriage, which took place in March, 1926. She stated that her husband had never made a homo for her and' that after the first baby was born they continued to live in one room. Wliilo she was ill in Auckland he came and took the second child back with him to Hamilton. The trouble was caused by her husband's mother, with whom ho was living. An order was made against the husband for t.ho restitution of conjugal rights within 14 days. Orders requiring the respondent to return to the petitioner within 14 days were granted in the following cases:— Frederick Pretoria Newdick (Mr. Ivine) against Edna M. B. Nowdick, Douglas George Knight (Mr. Singer) against Sarah Mavis Knight, Lillian Victoria Ford (Mr. Ray) against George Ford, Richard' Alexander (Newton (Mr. Kalman) against Hazel May Newton, Lowis Alfred Jillings (Mr. Skelton) against Katherine Jane Jillings, William John Dick (Mr. Skelton) against Henrietta Dick. The period was fixed at 21 days in the case of Lionel James Meredith (Mr. Turner) against Ida Meredith. The period was fixed at. 28 days in the case of William Colin Clark (Mr. Biernacki) against Ethel Jean Clark.