DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1747, 30 August 1905, Page 62

DIVORCE COURT.

His Honor Mr Justice Cooper, sitting in the divorce and matrimonial causes jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the 22nd inst., dealt with the following cases: —>

CROFT v. CROFT. Mr Buckie appeared for the petitioner, George Turner Croft, a contractor residing at the Lower Hutt, who sought a dissolution of his marriage with Charlotte Margaret Croft, formerly Johnson,, on the ground of her bigamous marriage with John William Chapman, who was joined as co-respondent. It appeared from the evidence that the petitioner and respondent, who were at the time a widower, and widow respectively, were married at Petone on February 15th, 1900. They only lived together about three weeks, as the petitioner said he found he “had caught a tartar,” and he separated from her, allowing her £1 a week for her maintenance. Later on the petitioner went to England, and thence to South Africa, where he served for about a year in the war. He then returned to New Zealand. On his arrival here he gave the respondent £52 which was due on account of the allowance he had made her, but had no further communication with her. Some time afterwards he learned that she had gone to South Africa, and had gone through the marriage ceremony with the co-respondent at Bloemfontein in December, 1903. There ivas no appearance of either the respondent or co-respondent, and his Honor, being satisfied with the evidence tendered as to the wrongdoing of- the respondent, granted a decree nisi, making it returnable in three months. As there was no evidence against the co-respon-dent, his Honor said he could not grant costs against him. WAKEFORD v. WAKEFORD. Mr D. M. Findlay appeared for the petitioner, Angelina Wakeford, formerly Lethaby, whe asked for a dissolution of her. marriage with Alfred John Wakeford' on the ground of his noncompliance with an order for the restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent did not appear. The evidence shewed that the parties were married oh April 17th, 1897, and lived in Nelson for a year, after which they came to Wellington, and in 1902 the respondent withdrew from cohabitation with his wife* and had not since made any attempt to provide for her. His Honor granted the decree as prayed, to be made absolute in six months; costs on the lower-scale against the respondent. WILD’S v. WILDS. Mr Wilford appeared on behalf of the petitioner, William Wilds, who sought a divorce from his wife, Minnie Maria Wilds, formerly Aldridge, on the ground of her misconduct with numerous persons not named in the petition. There was no appearance of the respondent. The evidence produced showed that the woman had become a dissolute and depraved person. The police gave her a very bad character, stating that there were thirty-three convictions against her for drunkenness, and that was not by any means the complete list. His Honor granted a decree nisi, making it returnable in three months. BOYD v. BOYD AND ANOTHER. Mr Wilford appeared for the petitioner, Robert John Boyd, who asked for a dissolution of his marriage with Gaynor Boyd, formerly Jones, on the ground of her misconduct with a man named Moore, who was joined as corespondent. Neither the respondent nor the co-respondent appeared. The evidence showed that the marriage was celebrated at the Cathedral, Napier, on May 31st, * 1899. Subsequently the couple liyed at several places in the Hawke’s Bay district, but on October Ist, 1901, the respondent left her husband, who had not seen her since. It was shown that she had lived as the wife of the co-respondent at a hoardinghouse on Lambton quay, and passed there as Mrs Moore. His Honor ed the decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lower YOUNG v. YOUNG. Mr Wilford appeared for Isabella Young, who petitioned against her busband, Frederick Robert Young, for restitution of conjugal rights. There was no appearance of the respondent. The parties were married by the Registrar at Foxton on April 26th, 1892. On January 14th, 1904, he left- her for the third or fourth time, and had not since returned, nor in any way provided for her. On previous occasions she had persuaded him to come back, but it was now understood that he was in Queensland. The petitioner had maintained herself and her young daughter by teaching music and singing. His Honor granted the decree as prayed, intimating that if respondent did not return in three months the wife could file an application for divorce; respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings. HUTCHINSON v. HUTCHINSON. Mr Wilford appeared for the petitioner, Amy Hutchinson, who asked for a dissolution of her marriage with Matthew Hutchinson, on the ground of his desertion of her for five years and upwards. The evidence showed that the

parties were married on August 22nd, 1892, at Nelson, by the Rev F. M. Isitt. In March, 1899, the respondent disappeared. Petitioner had earned her own living, and provided for her child ever since. His Honor granted the decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. He pointed out that when decrees are made absolute Registrars have no power to give the petitioners the custody of their children, as had been done in some cases by country Registrars. When decrees were made absolute applications for the custody of children had to be made to the Court. Costs in the case were granted against the respondent on the lower scale. BURT v. BURT. Mr Wilford appeared for the petitioner, Berthea (otherwise known as Bessie) Burt, formerly Johnson, who sought a divorce from her husband. James Burt, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The parties were married on. October 24th, 1875. The petitioner stated that her husband^—for whom there was no appearance—had treated her very cruelly, and she was afraid to live with him. He used to hammer her with his fists and thrash her with a stockwhip. On one occasion when she had been five weeks sick in bed, he took her by the legs and dragged her out of bed, saying that if she was going to lie there all the winter she might-as well lie outside. He thrashed her with an umbrella, and, pointing to a revolver, said: “Do you see this; I intend to do for you sooner or later if you come back and live in this neighbourhood.” His Honor held that a case of constructive desertion had been made out, as it was clear that the husband’s conduct had teen such that . his unfortunate wife could not live with him. The decree nisi was granted, and made returnable in three months, with £25 costs, Court fees, and witness’s expenses, to be paid by the respondent. ' HINSHELWOOD v. HINSHELWOOD. Catherine Frances Hinshelwood, for whom Mr Wilford appeared, petitioned for a divorce from her husband,. William Hinshelwood, on the. grounds of desertion, drunkenness, cruelty, and failure to maintain her. Respondent did not appear. Evidence was given that the parties were married at Fitzroy, Melbourne, on October 23rd, 1897, and came to this colony two years ago last March. All along the husband had proved himself to be an habitual drunkard, and he had been guilty of many gross acts of cruelty towards her. His Honor granted the decree nisi, to be made absolute in three . nionths. FLEMING v. FLEMING. Mr' Williams appeared for the petitioner, Helen Mary Fleming, formerly Biggs, who asked for a dissolution of her marriage with George Robert Fleming, a musician, but formerly a journalist, on the ground of desertion. The evidence showed that the parties were married at St. Leonards, Sydney, on October 9th, 1886, and then lived together until 1898, when the respondent went to Queensland. Since then he bad not returned to his wife nor provided for her in any way. There was no appearance of the respondent, and his Honor, being satisfied with the evidence tendered on behalf of the petitioner, granted the decree nisi, making it returnable in three months; costs against the respondent oh the lower scale WIGGINS v. WIGGINS. Mr Wilford appeared for the petitioner, Catherine Maria Wiggins, who asked for a divoroe from her husband, a farmer named Charles Wiggins, on the ground of desertion. There was no appearance of the respondent. The marriage took place at Grey town North on May 25th, 1898, and shortly afterwards the husband left his wife, and had not supported her or her child sinoe. His Honor found the issues proved, and granted a decree nisi, making it returnable in three months, the petitioner to have custody of her child until further order of the Court; oosts on the lowest scale against the respondent. The Court then adjourned sine die.