DIVORCE DECREES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23809, 9 November 1940, Page 15

DIVORCE DECREES

UNDEFENDED CASES HUSBAND WHO WENT AWAY WIFE LEFT WITH CHILDREN Twenty-one undefended divorce petitions were granted by Mr. Justice Johnston in the Supreme Court yesterday. The great majority of the petitions were based on the separation of the parties for longer than three years. Evidence that her husband had disappeared in 1928, leaving her with seven children to bring up, was given by Constance Gertrude Donald (Mr. Nutsford) in support of her petition for divorce from William Donald, to whom sho was married in 1911. She said that in 1928 when they were living at Matamata her husband left home, saying ho was going to Taranaki and would telegraph her from there, f He did not communicate, and shehad been unable to trace A\ decree nisi was granted. "Fanatical Views" Harry Thomas Rice (Mr. Chalmers), petitioning for divorco from Alma Emma Rice on tin; ground of separation, said they were married in Wellington in 192(3, and lived there for a few days afterwards. "Her mother arose in the course of our discussions," he said. "They held fanatical views on marriage and marital relations." She asked him to go, ho continued, and he left New Zealand for about 10 years. When he returned in 1937 they entered into a deed of separation. His Honor granted a decree nisi. In support of her petition based on desertion, Florence Ellen Martin (Mr. Schramm) said her husband, . George Edward Martin, used to drink to excess. They were married in 1923 and have five children. Ho left her in 1929 and they had lived apart ever since. His Honor granted a decree nisi. Cases oi Separation Separation for moro than three 3'ears by Court order or by agreement was the ground on which decrees nisi were issued in the following cases. Grace Chalmers (Mr. M. Robinson) against Maxwell Banks Chalmers; Ethel May Moves (Mr. Nutsford) against William Moves; Hannah Isabel Meyers (Mr. Nutsford) against William Herbert Meyers; Hugh Valdemar Johansen Oil-. 'Matthews) against Florence Johansen; George William Eric McPike (Mr Matthews) against Gladys Annie McPike; Samuel Holmes (Mr. Matthews) against Rachel Holmes; George Edward Smith (Mr. Field) against Mary Margaret Smith; Doreen Louisa Armstrong (Mr. Field) against Edward Thomas Armstrong; Alfred Thomas McDonald (Mr. Schramm) against Irene Betty McDonald; Elizabeth Robinson (Mr. Schramm) against James William Robinson; Ellen Duke (Mr. Blomfield) against Herbert James Arthur Duke. a Other Causes Decrees nisi on tho ground of desertion bv the respondent were granted in the "following cases:—Edith Rose Stewart (Mr. Wheaton) against Robert Watson Wainwright Stewart; Florence Mae Ingram (Mr. I ield) against Henrj Adam Bowo Ingram; Mizpah Audrey Mav Griffith (Mr. Schramm) against Geoffrev Arthur Griffith; Elsie Pickering (Mr. McCarthy) against Joseph Albert Pickering. . Adulters* having been proved against the respondent decrees nisi were cranted to the following petitioners:— Mate Druskovicli (Mr. M. Robinson) ' against" Mary-Ann Druskoyich and James Selling; James Waetford (Mr McCarthy) against Nellie Waetford and George Davis. w;i( . , A decree nisi was granted to Wilfred Jack Pratt (Mr. Schramm) against Daphne Lucille Pratt on the ground of the respondent's failure to comply with a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights. -■