MARRIAGE FAILURES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21187, 20 May 1932, Page 12

MARRIAGE FAILURES.

NEABLY SIXTY DIVORCES. A WIFE'S ENTERTAINING. JOINS THEATRICAL COMPANY. HUSBAND GRANTED DECREE. Nearly 60 divorce, pol it inns were dealt vith liy .Mr. Justice ITerdinan and Mr. .1 usticj Smith in the. Supreme Court yesterday. Complaints I hat his wife had made a habit of entertaining extravagantly and had eventually gone away with a theatrical company were made, by Louis Christian, who sought d ssolution (if his marriage with Maisie Christian on the ground of desertion. 'J lie marriage took place in July, 1913. Petitioner said he provided his Wife with ample means, but she acquired the habit, of entertaining largo numbers of fiiends in the home four or fivo nights a •week, an<l running him into expense. Eventually she went- out -to work, although tlu'ie v.as no necessity for her to do so, and was out every night of the week at dances or with friends. .She neglected the home so entirely that he had to send the children away to her mother in the North. In 1921 she, went to live with a friend mid refused to return to him, said petitioner. In the summer of 1921 she vent with a theatrical company to Wellington. and from that time he had neither seen nor heard of her. All inquiries had been without result. A decree, nisi was granted. "Drunk Hundreds of Times." The statement that her husband had come home, drunk hundreds of times and that he had knocked her about dozens of times was made by Isabella McCulley, who took action for divorce against William McCulley on the grounds of his habitual drunkenness, failure to maintain and cruelty. They were married in Scotland ✓ in; 1906. Petitioner said that on account of her husband's drunkenness she lived apart from him for seven or eight years before they came to New Zealand in 1923. They had lived at Te Aroha, Paeroa and Auckland. His conduct had been very bad, and one''time she had spent five weeks in hospital as a result of his violence. She finally left him last August. After this evidence had been corroborated by a relative His Honor granted « decree nisi. Vlie breaking up of a home because his wife preferred Auckland to Waihi, where ho worked, was described by Alfred Herbert Payne. He petitioned for divorce on tlus ground of desertion, from Marion Teresa. Payne, to whom he was married in September, 1913. Petitioner, who is a miner, said they went from Auckland to Waihi "in 1919, but his wife never liked it and finally returned to Auckland in ]925. She refused to go back to Waihi. i / decree nisi was issued. A Long Separation. Details of a separation for nearly 28 years were given in support of (he petition' of Francis G. W. Bullivant for divorce from Ethel Bullivant. The only child of the marriage is now 31 years of | age. I

The phrtics were married in Sydney in 1901, and shortly afterwards the petitioner went to employment in Queensland for two years, lfe maintained his wife ■while away, but she refused to leave her niotlier. lie obtained work in Sydney and lived with his wife in her mother's home., but did not get 011 with either of them. His wife began keeping company with another man. On account of quarrels about the management of the house his wife and her mother, in September, 1504, ordered him out of the house and told him they did not want to see-him .again. In November, 1904, he came to New Zealand, but his wife refused his request that she should accompany him. They had since agreed to live apart. A decree nisi was issued. Stating that his wife left him in 1929 and that it was not until May, 1931, that he discovered where she was living, William Henry Haggard, sought divorce from May Haggard on the ground of her misconduct. John Usury Simpson was named as the co-respondent. The parties were married in February, 1924, and there vevc no children. Evidence was given by . several witnesses, including (wo private inquiry agents, that respondent and co-respondent had lived together as man and / wife in Wellington and conducted a fish, and chips business there. A decree nisi was granted, and co-respond-ent, was ordered to pay costs. A Husband's Admission. A somewhat unusual position arose when a husband, who was respondent in a case brought on the ground of adultery,' appeared unexpectedly in Court and volunteered to make the desired admission against himself. Counsel for the petitioner, Lydia Gill, said she was not in Court as he had not e.\peeled to be libfe to proceed, but be would like to take tlii- evid-ence of the husband, John Henry Gill. (Jill said he appeared voluntarily, a''id admitted that ho had been living wiih another woman in Auckland and in Whangarei for 3] years. Mr. Justice Hrrdman: {low did you COrne to, give evidence '! Witness; 1 happened to be. in the | Court, sir. His Honor: Did your wife ask you to I Conif> along'.' No, sir. Witness had just completed his ' evidence when the wife appeared in Court, j ind was immediately put in the witness I bu\ to Enable the case to be completed, i She stated they were married in Ireland in July, ]922. and had two children. His Honor issued a decreo nisi. Misconduct was the ground of the j petition of John Ralph Penny against j Jane Ellen Penny, whose solicitor admitted tlvJ; allegation made againsL her | The parties were inanied in March, 1922, arid after 18 months they agreed to separate. I hey came tog; t her again in 3925, but that lasted only a few (lavs. Petitioner said lie had not seen her since, lmt he knew she had been living in Hamilton and had had a child there. She took affiliation proceedings ; n Court against a man there. A decree nisi was granted. Cases of Separation. .Decrees nisi were granted to the follow ing on the ground of the separation of the J'iirties for more than three years:— Margaret ('. fs. Crichton against Vivian Archibcli Crichtoji; Sarah Louisa Crogan against Edward James Crogan; Alice m- ? T iU ' ils against Charles Percy •jibbits; Dorothy Cozens against Edward Victor Cozens; Ada Rosina Colhoun against Joseph Colhoun ; Thomas Stewart •{Wilson against Catherine, Wilson; Marraret Anderson Young against Charles Jtenry 1 oung; Matthew Myers Freney ligainst Mary Louisa A. Freney; Charles

Cameron Ward against Selina Ward; Arthur Cyril Barriball against Janet Barriball; Ida May Brady against James Lockwood Brady; Edward Anderton against Doris Anderton; Jlino Pearl Whyto against William Whyte; William Henry Bundle against, Hazel May Bundle; Gwendolyn Marv Butland-Mann against William B. Butland-Mann; Ada Minnie Monk against, George Augustus Monk; Janet Mary Curtis against Percy William Curt is. Proof of the respondent's misconduct having been given, decrees Ji'si were issued to the petitioner in the following cases:—James Claude Gibbs against Daisy Kllen Gibbs: Grace Mav Clcmpson against Thomas Clcmpson; Albert Fielding against Cathleen Fickling; and Albert Siebcrt against Hinemoa Mary S : cbert. Desertion Proved. Desertion was the ground on which decrees nisi were granted to the following:—Cyril Edgar Cooper against Ruth Beatrice Cooper; Agnes May Patterson against Benjamin Patterson; Kathleen Allot) Hanks against, Francis Victor Hanks; Violet I'Yaser against, Donald MacFarlane Eraser; Thelma Annie Nelson against Oeorgc Thomas Nelson; Thomas llcnry Norton against Ethel Elizabeth Norton; Beatrice Doris Churchill against Alfred Ernest Churchill; Harold Garfield Holt against Amelia Catherine Holt; George Joseph Wiley against Mary Ann Hi ley; Crank Caryl Barber against, Edith Barber; and Joan Mav.vnll Harper against Laurence Juhn 1 larper. On the ground of (lie respondent's failure to comply with an order for tlm restitution of conjugal rights decrees nisi were granted to (he petitioner in the following cases:—l'loretice Amelia M. White against dailies Gilbert White; Herbert Brierley against Mary Brierlev; Lionel dames Meredith against Ida Meredith; 1' rederick John Claret against Ifedwig Marie Claret; Kenneth MaeCormick against. Margaret. King MaeCotmick ; Philip dames Western against Marie .lane Western.