DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVIX, Issue 3005, 17 December 1896, Page 1

DIVORCE COURT.

SHIRLEY V. SHIRLEY. la this case Barbara Shirley applied toe a judicial separation and alimony from Paul Shirley, Sergeant of Police, at present stationed at Wellington, on tho grounds of cruoltyjand ill-treatment. Mr Jellicoo appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Skorrott for the respondent. In opening tho case Mr Jollicoo said the marriage between tho petitioner and tho respondent took place in 1659 at Dunedin, and after the marriage it was alleged that the respondent extracted largo sums of money from the petitioner by violence and threats of violence, lie often violently assaulted her, and once struck her with a chair, and on another occasion he ejected her from the house. In 1890 he deprived her of her clothing and forced her to wait on another woman whom ho had brought into tho house. At tho Dunedin railway station one day he had also assaulted her, and after that she loft him. Sometime after she returned to him on his promising to treat her kindly, but ho had behaved as badly as ever, so that she had boon compelled to leave him again. Barbara Shirley, wife of tho respondent, said- sbo resided at Dunedin. She was married to tho respondent in Dunedin on January 31,1889. Respondent was then a sergeant of police. Sho was at that time possessed of X IGCKJ. Sho had also about JIISO worth of furniture. She had boon married about 20 years ago, but when sho married the respondent sbo believed hor-. self a widow. She bad not beard from her first husband from tho time ho had loft hor—not long after thoir marriage—and she had no reason to believe that she was not a widow. After hor first 'marriage they had gone Homo to London from Dunedin, and it was then that her husband left her. Her son by him was now 25 years of age. About a year or two after her first husband left her ho had gone to America, and die bad never board from him after that. After sbo married Shirloy in 1889, she paid oil tho mortgages over some of his property, and then asked him for tho papers in respect to that money, but he refused, and said ho bad only married her for her money. Ho often quarrelled with hor over cheques which sho bad sent to her, and which ho tried to obtain. On one occasion bo bad threatened to murder hor and so dispose of her body as to suggest suicide. On another occasion bo bad tried to choke her by forcing peas down her throat. When sho ran out of tho house after lie had threatened to murder hor, ho wont after her and dragged hor into tho house and, after locking tho door, took her upstairs. AVhen she screamed ho put his hands over her mouth and stopped her voice. Shirley sometimes locked tho food and clothing up so that sho could not get at them. After she loft him he bocamo ill with erysipelas, and she, at his request, returned and nursed him, but ho then illtreated her more than over and "lau hor out ”of the house. She again returned tohim, but ho tried to strangle hor in hod one night. Witness then told a long talo of cruelty and abuse of a similar nature and said she had finally left him. After that sho met him at the Dunedin Hail way Station, when ho stood on hor foot to hurt her. Sho said, "Got off, you wretch,” whereupon he struck hor with his fist. Sho had .£BOO when she loft hor husband: Mr Solomon, of Dunedin, drew up a deed of separation between herself and Shirley,' hut it was never signed. To Mr Skorrett: She complained of the conduct of her first husband to the captain of tho ship on their way Home. Witness then detailed at length a quarrel which , had taken place between horsolf nnd , her, husband when they reached London, after which her husband bad loft hor.

Margaret Davis deposed that she lived near the Shirleys and on several occasions ■ Mrs Shirley had come into her house in a very nervous and excited state. . C. McNeo said that in 1803 he was on the Dunedin Railway Station. He heard a scream and saw Shirley give his wife a shove in the ribs and then stamp on her toes. Shirley told him that the woman was his wife and was a “ little gone in tho head.” Mrs Hoaro, of Dunedin, deposed that she knew Mrs Shirley, in Dunedin, and for some time was coot at her house. Shirley did not live with her, but he came to the house one day and quarrelled with his wife. Witness heard them talking in loud tones. At this stage Mr Jellicoe road a doctor’s certificate that the next witness was unable to attend, and asked that His Honor should allow tho evidence of another witness to be taken at Dunedin, Ho asked* for an adjournment for that purpose. Mr Skerrett agrtied to an adjournment, in order to have time to amend his answer' by filing a claim that tho marriage be declared null and void. Mr Jellicoe agreed to that, and tho case was adjourned unti} the next sitting of tiro Court.: WALKED. V. WALKED. In this case the wife applied for a dissolution of marriage, on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. Mr Skerrett appeared for tho petitioner, and Mr Hindmarah for tho respondent. Mary Ellon Atkins deposed thatshe knew the respondent, Robert Walker, and his wife, and lived with them for about two years at the Upper Hutt. When Mrs Walker was away from the house Walker misconducted himself with witness. This happened on several occasions. Witness told no one of the occurrence. To Mr Hindmarsh: She was not 15 years :of ago when she left Walker’s ' house. Shb could not say how long it was before she left that Walker misconducted himself with her, but she would probably bo about .13 years of ago at tho time.' Tho intercourse between herself and Walker took place in Walker’s house. Sho had kept this to herself for tho last five years. At this stage Mr Skerrett. asked leave to amend tho petition by adding tho words “incestrious adultery,” instead of simply “adultery.” This was granted. Mary Walker deposed that she married _ the respondentia 1879. He illtroated her on several occasions, and on one occasion he caught her by the throat and threw her against a sofa. Witness lived with him until three and a half years ago, when she was obliged to leave him. "" Marion Kershaw {mother of tho last witness) deposed that she had heard of tho - connection between Mary Atkins and Walker, and had told her daughter, Susan MoLauohlin deposed that sho lodged with the Walkers in Kent terrace • about 12 months ago. They wore always , quarrelling. _ . . Robert Walker, respondent m the action, denied the evidence of Mary Atkins as totally untrue. He had' never misconducted himself with her. He had never thrown a knife at his wife. Ho could not suggest any reason why these lies should be fabricated against him. This closed the case for tho defence. His Honor said it was impossible to take any notice or give any credence to tho statements made by the last witness, The o-irl’s evidence had, unfortunately, been only too truthfully given. He granted a decree nisi, the decree to be made absolute at the end of three calendar months. Costs (.£35) were allowed and the custody of the . threo children granted to tho petitioner. GALLEUAWK V; GALLEKAWK. ; Mr Oilivior, for the petitioner, Hamilton Gallehawk, in this case moved for the custody of the children (named in the petition) to be given to the petitioner, on the ground that he was the proper person to have the charge of them. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the respondent. His Honor decided to adjourn the matter until the next sitting of the Court. v