MARRIAGES FAIL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22046, 28 February 1935, Page 14

MARRIAGES FAIL

SCrNDEFENDED DIVORCES TOTAL OF FORTY CASES -V" : V Y HUSBAND'S GOOD MEMORY DATE OF A. FILM PLAY Forty undefended divorce petitions Were dealt with by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday in three hours. A case in which the petitioner re- ' membered the date of separation from his wife by a film which was being shown at the time, was that of Charles Richard Torstenson (Mr. Field), who sougbt divorce from Olive May Torstenson on the ground of an agreement for separation in operation for more than three years.,, •Petitioner gave evidence that the mar•riagc, took place in 1925, and he separated from his wife by mutual consent on June 9, 1931. His Honor: How do you remember the date ? Petitioner: By a picture that was showing in Whangarei at the time. What was the picture? "East lynne." , "You must have a good memory, commented His Honor. A decree nisi was granted after evidence in support of petitioner was given. Eighteen Years Apart

The fact of separation for 18 years ■Was produced in support of a petition for divorce' bv Edward William James Heasman (Mr.'Singer) against Mabel Annie Heasman. . Petitioner said he was married in England. During the Great War he served with the British Forces, and on one occasion in 1917 he happened to visit his home unexpectedly on furlough. He then found that his wife and another woman had been out with soldiers, using their maiden names. The matter was discussed and petitioner and his wife agreed that they would not live together. He came to New Zealand in 1921, but he had not seen his wife since 1917. •' A decree nisi was granted. Habitual drunkenness, cruelty and failure to maintain her, were alleged by Gladys Mary Bald (Mr. Matthews) against her husband, John Reaburn Bald (Mr. Terry), from whom she sought a divorce. She told His Honor that her husband had been drunk four or five times a week for the past seven or eight years. They were married in November. 1923, and there was one child of the marriage. Her husband was in constant employment, but often left her and the child short of necessaries. He had scalded her with a pot of boiling tea, thrown her downstairs, and, in temper, upset a laden table. His Honor granted a decree nisi and pave the petitioner the custody of the child. , - . Brotlifer as Ob-respondent A brother was named as co-respondent in the case in which Eric Roy Stone (Mr. Nutsford) sought dissolution of his marriage with Coralie Isabel Esme Stone, on the .ground of her misconduct. The petitioner stated that they were married in June, 1929. His wife now had the tw6 Children of the marriage, aa he could not afford to keep them. When his wife went to Grev- • town, his brother, Arthur Goodwin r Stone, visited her there and he persuaded her to keep house for him. Later : they lived together as man and wife at Kaitieke, and a child was . born last November. The respondent went by the name of Mrs. Arthur Stone. After corroborative evidence had been heard, His '•Honor granted a decree nisi. A v&jy'short niamage was-mentioned in the case of Ethel Emson (Mr. L. C. Adams), who sought dissolution of her marriage with Frank Emson on the ground of wilful desertion. Petitioner said they were married at the Auckland registry office in October.

1927. Her husband left her the follow-

ing December, and she had not seen him since. He had not contributed to the support of her or her child. A decree nisi was granted. • Desertion was successfully pleaded as a ground for of marriage in the following cases: — Walter Grey (Mr. Wily) against Elizabeth Ann Foster Grey; Mabel Massev Bates (Mr. Matthews) against William Ernest Huia Bates; John Hay (Mr. Webb) against Sarah Hay; Hilda Sarah Pickens (Mr. M. Adams) aerainst William Weir Gilpin Pickens (Mr. Meek). Cases of Separation

Separation by deed or mutual agreement for mors than three years was the ground on which decrees nisi were

granted in the following cases:—Pryce . Miliett (Mr. Singer) against Ruby Millett; Margaret Jessie Young (ML Matthews) against George Alfred .Young; Irene Agnes Wolfe (Mr. L. C. Adams) against Victor Lionel Wolfe; Mabel isabell Divena Barber (Mr-. G. Clarke) against Edward Trevore Barber; Grace Britton (Mr. Sullivan) against William James Britton (Mr. Smytheman)j Hone Te Koha Hoterene (Mr. Matthews) against Te Ora Nore Hoterene; David May Garner (Mr. L. |C. Adams) against Caroline Louisa Garner; Robert John Burlton-Bennet ,(Mr. Terry) against Martha Charlotte 'Burlton-Bennet (Mr. - Allan Moody); v William Gilbert Killen (Mr. Clayton, of Whangarei), against Christian D. M. Killen; Arthur Charles Farley (Mr. Matthews,) against Edith May Farley; Francis Smith (Mr. Uren) against Violet Clanrence Smith; Jeanie Johnston ! ((Mr. Thorne) against James Johnston; Stanley Thomson (Mr. Yarnall) against Kathleen Thomson; Elizabeth Ann Matilda Milner (Mr. Elwarth) against William Milner; Lilian Marie Ross ;(Mr. Yarnall) against Hector Angus Itoss. ■ - - ' Court Orders Ignored On the ground that the respondent s had failed to comply with a, decree for the restitution of conjugal rights the following/petitioners were granted decrees nisi:— Marguerite Victoria Hall 'i(Mr. Cocker) against Alfred Edwin Hall; Walter John, Brcome (Mr. Hubble) against Eileen IJoso Broome; Doris Clara Dickinson (Mr. Wilkin) against John Stewart Dickinson: Lillian May Beard (Mr. Biernacki) against Charles Roydcn Beard; Ethel May Keegan' (Mr. - Yarnall) against Henry Keegan. ' •... Decrees nisi, to become effective. after three months, were, granted to the following on the ground of the respondont/s misconduct: Constance Margaret Blake (Mr. Singer) against Clifford Edge Blake; Clara Alfrida McLean (Mr. Matthews) against Finlay John McLean; Marion Ethel Mar McKennie (Mr: Hall Skelton) against' William Henry McKennie; Nicholas Mann Watson (Mr. Terry) against Donald Gillies Watson.