DIVORCE COURT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1695, 24 August 1904, Page 80 (Supplement)

DIVORCE COURT

At a sitting of the Divorce Court last week, undefended cases were taken before Mr Justice Cooper. ENTICOTT v. ENTICOTT. Charles Enticott, settler, of Wellington, for whom Mr Kirk appeared, sought a dissolution of marriage with Bertha Enticott on the ground of desertion. The case was adjourned until September 30th, owing to irregularity of service on respondent. PRIED, v. PETER. Walter Charles Prier, labourer, Lower Hutb, applied for divorce from Jane Prier, his wife, on the ground of adultery. The parties were married on December 20tli, 1899, at Wellington, and afterwards lived at Alcatarawa and at Lower Hutt. The , issue of the marriage was one child. The Court gave a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on lowest • scale against co-respondent, who was a- lodger jvitli the family. Mr Wilford appeared for petitioner. DEE v. DEE. Application was made by Louisa Jane Dee, of Wellington, for restitution of conjugal rights with John Patrick Dee, of Rangiora-, Canterbury, labourer. The marriage took place in October, 1900, and afterwards the parties lived at Eketahuna and Petone, There were no children. xcespondent withdrew from cohabitation in December last, and refused to return. He had not contributed toAvards the support of his Avife. A decree Avas made for the restitution asked for. Mr Wilford appeared for the petitioner. MORRISON v. MORRISON. Thomas Henry Morrison, optician, of Wellington, applied for divorce from iiis Avii'e, Ethel Sarah Morrison, on the ground of desertion. The parties Avere married at Wellington, oir-7th December, 1893. Tavo years later respondent left her husband for the South Island, and refused to return. She Avrote, hinting that the rea*son of her absence Avas because she had committed bigamy. The decree nisi A\ r as granted. Mr W ilford Avas for petitioner. CLEMENS v. CLEMENS. Heal on Clemens, of Wellington, sought divorce from Ered Clemens, of Auckland, on the former of habitual drunkenness, cruelty, and failing to provide maintenance. The evidence shoived that the marriage took place in 1899, at Palmerston North. The parties altenvards lived at Hastings, Pukepuke, Gisborne, and Waijlii. There Avere no children. After the marriage the husband, it Avas alleged, was more or less in a continual state of drunkenness. lie ill-used his wife and threatened to blow her brains out with a revolver. Ho not only did not maintain his Avife. b\it practically lived upon Auhat earnings she could make. Mr Justice Cooper, iu granting a decree nisi, said it Avas one of those cases in Avhich the IaAV Avisely made provision for dissolution of marriage. Respondent Avas ordered to pay costs on the lowest scale. Mr Wilford Avas for petitioner. SNOW v. SNOW. Lilian Sarah Ellen Snow, of Palmerston North, for Avhom Mr Wilford appeared, applied for divorce from Henry Siioav on the grounds of cruelty, habitual drunkenness, and failure bo provide maintenance. The parties were married at Palmerston North in April, 1893, afterAV'ards living at Apfti and Wellington. Petitioner in evidence said her husband was frequently in a state of delirium tremens. He used to drink a bottle of Avhisky in an evening. She had never received anything from him but a cheque for J£2, Avhich Avas dishonoured by the bank./ Mr Justice Cooper granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute iu three months, and said the Court should have no hesitation in making siAch an order to free a wife of such an incubus. Coses Avere allowed on the loAvest scale. FLANAGAN v. FLANAGAN. Mary Elizabeth Flanagan,- Wellington, sought a dissolution of her marriage Avith John Flanagan, bookmaker, AVellington, on account of his habitual drunkenness and cruelty. y' The parties Avere married at Christchurch on August 19, 1899, and afterAvards resided at Palmerston North and Wellington. The Avife doposed that Flanagan Avas constantly drunk —> sometimes remaining in bed a Aveelc at a time, except Avhen he AA r ent out to get more drink. He assaulted hex- from time to time, locked her out of the house, threatened to shoot her, and illtreated her about the time of her confinement. She left him last April. Evidence as to the respondent’s cruelty and habitual drunkenness was also gi\ r en by Mary Phoebe Dumbleton, Avith whom the couple had lodged in Courtenay place for some mpnths after last Christmas. His Honor adjourned the case until Monday next, to enable the petitioner to bring corroborative evidence of the previous habits of the respondent. Mr Hindmarsk appeared for the petitioner.