Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


In tlie Divorce Court yesterday the Chief Justice heard the undefended suit Mason v. Mason, a. wife’s petition for dissolution of n\arriage. i ‘Mr .Skerrett appeared for the petitioner, and, Mr Gully watched the proceedings on behalf of the respondent. . His Honor said he' hub read the papers' in the case, and also the evidence which had been,’ given by the witnesses in Dunedin. ■ Mr Skerrett said ho thought it would only bo necessary ■to hoar the evidence of the petitioner in regard to the nlIqgeJ acts of cruelty. There was corroboration in evidence taken before the Registrar, Mabel Meredith Mason, _ the petitioner, said' she was married to John Arthur Mason in. Dunedin on the Bth July, 1801. Thera was oho child as issue of the marriage. After ■marriage slm lived with her husband at Datvoy, in the Tapnnui district. About five years ago they left (Now Zealand. They arrived in England in January. 189i5. Whilst they were in England there was a, quarrel between her husband and herself," and she returned to New Zealand with: her mother in February, 1896. She left her husband three - or 1 four months before that. She. took legal advice in London, and) was advised ito applv to the New Zealand Court. Her husband’s cruelty was one of the reasons .why she, left him. Whilst residing, at Dalvey in -1892 her husband ordered her out of the room. He took up the bread-knife and chased her out of the house with it. Hekont her outside for an' hour and a half, until someone cam© home. It was rainingl at the time. In the same year, after a quarrel, he kicked her against a door and bruised her.' In February, 1893, be threw a. butter-dish at her. In the early part of 1894 j pear the Fernhill Club, in Dunedin, he pushed her against a fence and attempted to strike her, lint was prevented by_ her brother. Ore the way to England in May, 1394, they stayed a.t a hotel in Melbourne. Ho came home very early one morning, with his face blackened. She objected, and he turned her but 'into the passage and locked the door. He drank very much. At Plymouth he threatened to cut her throat, being at r the time very excited. It was after ■‘she returned to New Zealand that inquiries were made as to his ..misconduct. She had heard gossip in England, hut did not then believe it was true. Since leaving the responuent she had had custody of the child, which she had maintained entirely at her own expense. Mr Gully asked no questions. His Honor said he thought a divorce should he granted. He gave the petitioner the custody of the child, leaving power to’- the respondent to apply under the Children’s Custody Act, if he desired to do so afterwards. He allowed the costs of the present proceedings and of the act on petition , together at £45, with disbursements and witnesses’ expenses..

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

DIVORCE COURT., New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4050, 15 May 1900

Word Count

DIVORCE COURT. New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4050, 15 May 1900