SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8737, 20 May 1914, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

IN DIVORCE UNDEFENDED CASES DEALT WITH YESTERDAY. His' Honour Air Justice Hosking was) engaged in the Supreme Court) Througiiout yesterday hearing undefended applications for divorce. AN ESTRANGEMENT. LEADS TO DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.' David Milligan, for whom Mr S. A. Atkinson appeared, applied for a divorce from his wife, Augusta AT. AL Alilligan (Air A. A. S. Menteath) on (the grounds of constructive desertion. An order for security of costs for respondent was 1 granted on the application of Air Menteath, who stated that ,'tho petitioner was a man of ample Wans. The application was not opposed. Mr Atkinson said that constructive desertion began not later than March, 9th, 1909, when petitioner and his wild were making a voyage to England. Respondent mot a man on the boat, and, her feelings became deeply involved* and she told the petitioner that _ she had mado a vow never to allow him a husband’s rights again. No suggestion of misconduct was made.

Petitioner, in the course of his evidence, said ho was married to the respondent in January, 1903 and lived with her in Wellington till 1909, when they went on a visit to England. He had lived happily with his wife till that time, but on the voyago an estrangement arose. He thought that his wife was spending too much time with a passenger. Ho appealed to them to give up the meetings, and, later, in their cabin, respondent stated that she had decided to deny her husband his -privileges. The estrangement continued througiiout the voyage, and petitioner returned before his wife. At Sydney ho received a letter from his wife in which she said that she would let bygones be bygones, provided that petitioner would follow the same course. Petitioner wrote a letter indicating that he was willing to receive his wife back. He wont to the wharf to meet her, but a warm meeting did not take place, and respondent made the statement that there was nothing in Sydney to interest her, and asked that she should bo allowed to go back to London to map out a career in something that appealed to her. She sometimes mentioned a stage career, and said that petitioner might as well allow her to go back, as she would he of no use to him. He took this to mean that she would not live as a wife with him. He declined tile application and made life as happy as ho could for respondent, hoping that she would soon settle down. This, however, did not prove to be the case. Up till April, 1911, petitioner used every means in his power to effect a reorn< diation. Towards the end of April icspondent asked for an allowance to enable her to make a career for herself. She wrote to him stating that her feelings would never he the same for him and, feeling that a crisis had arisen ho placed the matter in the hands of his solicitors. Respondent left in Alay, 1911, and went to Auckland and Sydney. She later wrote to petitioner stating that she had received an engagement with Williamson’s “Ben Hur” Company. Petitioner had been making respondent an allowance, but no marital relations had existed between them since the estrangement in 1909. .

His Hononr reserved his decision In order that ho might be able to inspect the correspondence which Mr Atkinson handed in. Decision on a petition for alimony was also reserved.

AN ERRANT WIEE. A decree nisi, to bo moved absolute at the expiration of three months, was f ranted in the case of Allan W. T. [amilton (Mr E. K. Kirkcaldie) v. Ruby W. Hamilton and Sydney Lowjok. It was set out that petitioner was married on February 23rd, 1906, and first resided with his wife in Auckland. The respondent then left and went 'to live with the'co-respon-dent in Feilding. In support of the application Mr Kirkcaldie said he had a letter from respondent in which it was started she was going to ■ live with the co-respondent, and there was also a letter from the latter stating that they had received notification of the divorce proceedings, but did not intend 'to defend.

The petitioner said that in May, 1912, respondent left for England and, coming back, she met the co-respon-dent. He continued to live with respondent till March 24th, when he received a letter from her. He had not seen his wife since. Evidence ns to the respondent and co-respondent living together was given by B- N. Sandilands, solicitor, of Feilding. In granting the decree nisi, His Honour allowed petitioner custody of the children. FAILED TO RETURN. Elizabeth Seville (Mr T. M. Wilford) applied for a divorce from her husband, Benjamin Saville, to whom sjio was married .on August 6th, 1395. Petitioned stated that after their marriage, she and respondent lived in New Zealand for about three years.Then respondent got into business difficulties and left for West Australia. Prom there they went to South Africa, where respondent got into trouble, and was imprisoned for twelve months. Some time after the expiry of that term, petitioner left for New Zealand, respondent promising to follow her. He had not dono so. That' was sis years ago. His Honour reserved his decision, in order that he might further consider a question as to domicile. MISCONDUCT. In the case of George Mason (Mr T. M. Wilford) v. Annio Mason, the grounds upon which, the claim for divorce was based were adultery. The petitioner stated that ho was married to the respondent in 1891, in Scotland. After coming to Jive in New Zealand, ho visited Sydney in connection with his business, and on his return he found his wife leading a life that resulted in potitionet making the application before the court;

After hearing police evidence as to tho mode of life of the respondent, llis .Honour "ranted, a decree nisi, to bo made absolute in three months.

HUSBAND DISAPPEARS. Grace Isabel AlcLeod (Air T. AL Wilford) applied for a divorce from William James AlcLeod, a commercial traveller, on the grounds of desertion. Petitioner stated that the marriage took place in Christchurch in January, 1903. In July she became ill, and had to enter the hospital, and it 'was during the time she was in the hospital that respondent disappeared. She had tried to trace him, but her search had. been unsuccessful. A decree nisi was granted, to ho mado absolute in three months. “SAW SPOOKS.” Alary Ann Thew applied for a dissolution of her marriage with Hugh 18. Thew, on the ground of desertion. |AIr T. AI. Wilford appeared for the ■‘petitioner in support of the application. Petitioner staled that she was married to respondent in June, 188-1, and resided with him till 1909, when ,ho left her. ' He became a spiritualist, and after that they were never happy. Mr Wilford: “He saw spooks at times?” Petitioner: “Yes.” She stated that she had never heard from her husband from the time of his disappearance. She had supported the children herself. , A decree nisi was granted, petitioner to have custody of the children. AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE. William Ernest Aliß (Mr H-. F O’Leary) applied for a dissolution ot his marriage with Beatrice Jessie jMill, on the grounds of desertion. Air O’Leary stated that this was a case in which the petitioner was resident in New Zealand, and was making an application against his wife, who resided in Alelbourne, and who had never lived in New Zealand. The petitioner stated he was married to respondent in Melbourne in 1900, and they lived together in Melbourne till 1906, when respondent left him. In August, 1907, petitioner came to Wellington, and had resided •here since. Before leaving Melbourne, he paid his wife maintenance for their children. On some occasions she threw the money in his face. From the time of their marriage, which took place when they were both 19 years of age, they had disagreed.

After hearing the evidence of petitioner’s mother, His Honour said it was difficult to say which party was responsible for the desertion. The application was adjourned, to be brought on again at the first opportunity.

PREFERRED THE LODGER. Samuel R. Vince (Mr T. AI. Wilford) applied for a dissolution of his marriage with Ann Jean Vince, on the ground of adultery. Thomas H. Fem was named as co-respondent.

Petitioner said ho was married to respondent in July, 1906, and lived with her in Wellington. In 1912 the respondent admitted cohabiting with the corespondent, who was a lodger. Petitioner had had his suspicions aroused the Christmas before. He was camping at Plimmerton, and wanted his wife to go with him. She refused till Fern was allowed to accompany them. On their return to Wellington he taxed the 00-respondent with misconduct, and told him that if matters were not right he would have to go. Fern replied, “ Oh, I will ask Mrs Vince, and if she says I have not to go, I will not go.” Petitioner then taxed the respondent, who admitted her wrongdoing, and stated that she preferred the co-respon-dent. Petitioner then left, and respondent and the co-respondent had since •lived together. A decree nisi was granted, to he made absolute in three months. Costs, on the lowest scale, were allowed against the co-respondent.

WENT TO CALIFORNIA. Charlotte Couzens (Mr T. M. Wilford; applied for a divorce from Ernest R. Couzens on the ground of desertion. The petitioner said she was married to the respondent in May, 1907, and lived with him in Feilding and Blenheim. In December, 1907, the respondent, who was a cattle-dealer, suddenly disappeared, and the petitioner had since supported herself. In reply to His Honour, petitioner stated that she and her husband had not quarrelled. The respondent left for Wellington, and stated that he would return on the following day.|Petitioner had not seen him since. Corroborative evidence was given by Kate Preston, sister of the petitioner. Mr Wilford said respondent had been traced to California. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, custody of the child of the marriage being granted to petitioner. Costs were allowed on the highest scale. DRUNKENNESS AND CRUELTY.' Drunkenness and habitual cruelty were the grounds upon which Lucy C. Osspring (Mr T. M. Wilford) applied for a dissolution of her marriage with George A, Osspring The petitioner' stated that she was married to respondent in January, 1903. Tlie respondent, before his marriage, was addicted to drink, and about a year after the marriage he became an habitual drunkard. Petitioner had taken him from hotels on many occasions. A prohibition order had been taken out against him, but it had no effect. The respondent had been a steward on the coastal boats, but he had lost position after position. By keeping a boardinghouse she had maintained herself and the children. The respondent had repeatedly struck her, and had threatened her life. He had been brutal towards her for years.

After hearing further evidence, His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with custody of the children to the petitioner.

OTHER CASES. Eliza Thorpe (Mr T. M. Wilford) applied for divorce from Walter J. Thorpe. After hearing evidence, His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. Henry Edward Sayers, a labourer, sought dissolution of his marriage with .Mary Ellen Sayers on the ground of adultery, Stephen .Dempsey was joined as co-respondent. A decree nisi was granted, costs on the lowest scale being allowed against the .co-respondent. 3lr T. Young appeared for the .petitioner. Isabel 31. Taylor, for whom Mr Wilford appeared, applied for a decree

nisi against Percy Taylor, to whom she was married in 1912.

The decree sought was granted, and an order for the custody of the child of the marriage was made in favour of the petitioner. Costs on the lowest scale were allowed. A decree nisi was granted in the case of David AlcFarJaue (Air T. AI. Wilford) v. Alary AlcFarlane, the ground of the action being desertion. Petitioner, a trimmer in the employ of the Gear Company, stated that he was married to the respondent in 1901, and respondent deserted him about eleven years ago. She had never sought maintenance from him.