DIVORCE COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10292, 29 May 1919, Page 6

DIVORCE COURT

ft BUSY DAY TWENTY SUITS DISPOSED OF. Yesterday was a busy day in the Divorce Court, no fewer than twenty cases being disposed of. The- Dench was occupied by the Chief Justice {(S’.r Robert Stout;. ■ TRONSON v. TRONSON. Desertion and misconduct were the grounds of the petition by Isabella iderlena Tronson against Arthur Do Cudray Tronson. Evidence was given chat respondent deserted bis wife shortly after the marriage in 1913, anil had been living with another woman. In 1916 he fell into trouble over a woman’s ring. His Honour granted the usual decree. CURTISS v. CURTISS. Esther Curtiss (Mr P. W. Jackson; stated that her husband, Sydney Harold Curtiss, had failed to' maintain herself or the two children. The parties were married at Ealmerston North, and respondent left the home shortly after, and had never maintained tho petitioner since. The lattex - had been compelled to earn her own living, and the children were being kept m a home. A decree nisi was granted, petitioner being given custody of the children PEARSON v. PEARSON. Trouble came early in the married life of Elizabeth Stuart Pearson, who petitioned for a divorce from John Pearson. The marriage took place in 1896, in Glasgow, where the parties lived for a time. Respondent develop-; ed tho drinking habit, and his behaviour w'as not all it should have been. In 1913 petitioner came to New Zealand, and about a year later she sent for her husband. Affsr living in the country for three months, the respondent again commenced his drinking habits, and in addition severely treated his wife and family. “He seems to have been a drunken scoundrel,” said His Honour, in granting a decree, with custody of the children to the wife. MURPHY ; v. MURPHY.

An elderly man named John Murphy (Mr F. E. Ward) sought the dissolution of his marriage with Adelaide Emily Murphy. It was shown that the parties were married on September 16th, 1911, and that the respondent left the petitioner a week after. She had heen written to, but the reply was, “I do not want to cross your path again.” _ A decree nisi was granted. HILL v. HILL.

John Hill (Mr J.A. Scott), a returned soldier, said he was married in 1914 to Florrio Hill, and there w*as one child, a boy, of the marriage. He subsequently went to the front and arrived back in New Zealand in 1917. There was no greeting for him from his wife when ho stepped ashore, and ho sub-, sequontly ascertained that Ins wife to living in adultery in Tory street. • Petitioner Was granted a decree.

STRATHER v. STEATHER. A story of neglect and cruelty was told when Janet Strather (Mr P. W. Jackson) stepped into the witness-box to ask for the dissolution of her marriage with Edward Strather. She stated that she married the respondent in 1898, and there were two children. Respondent had been drinking and illtreating his wife and had not supported her for a considerable time past. Tire usual decree was granted. COTTER v. COTTER.

Misconduct with another woman was alleged against Frederick Charles Henry Cotter, whose wife, Alice Emma Rose Cotter, asked for a divorce. The parties were married at Carterton in 1891, and five children wore born to them. For some time tbev kept a store at Te Wbarau, and in January last the petitioner had reason to suspect her, husband. Private inquiry agents were employed, and the result was that it was proved that the resnondent was living hi ed’dtm-v. When charged tho respondent treated the ■ •'•li-le matter'in an off-hand manlier and never denied his guilt. ‘ A decree nisi was granted. HOGSDEN v. HOGBDEN.

Adultery was the ground of tho petition of Matthew flogsden (Mr P. W. Hog'den. Petitioner stated that be married the respondent in 1910 at Wellington, and tnere wore +wo children of the marriage. He Imd vnsrveions of his wife and Inter ascertained, that she was "carrying on” with another man. Hie usual decree was granted, - with costs against the co-resrmndent. ■ BARRY v. BARRY. Catherine Barry (Mr Jackson) de. scribed her husband, Robert William Barry, as a worthless drunkard who had failed to support her practically ever since they were married in 1996. The respondent had been drinking very heavily, and in order to keep herself she was compelled to take in sewing. He was a secret drinker, and fairly regularly provided himself with •a bottle of whisky every Sunday. A decree nisi was granted. ROSS v. ROSS. Muriel Collin Ross (Mr Jackson), who sought a dissolution of her marriage with James William Murdoch Ross, sad they were married in 19)2 and lived in Wellington for some time. He had never maintained her properly. The respondent went away to the front and returned in March Inst. Meanwhile the petitioner ascertained that • her husband was suffering from a sexual disease. Ho had a very bad record in the army. A decree, nisi was granted. HARLAND v. HARLAND. A decree,nisi was granted in the case of. May Agnes Harland (Mr Jackson) against William Thomas Harland. The ground of tho petition was desertion. The parties were manned in 1902, aiid tho respondent left homo as the result of a disagreement. HENDRICKSON v. HENDRICKSON Florence Ann Elizabeth Hendrickson (Mr Jackson) asked for a dissolution of her marrinf o with Daniel Peter Hendrickson. Tho, parties were married in 1901, and had lived in various parts of New Zealand and also in South Africa, While the family resided at Upper Hutt the respondent severely treated his wife while under tho influence of drink. A little drink made him brutal, and it was impossible for the petitioner to live with her husband. Respondent’s objectionable behaviour commenced six weeks after tho marriage, and peitioncr had

been forced to work in order to keep herself for the past two years. A decree nisi was granted. JACKSON v," JACKSON.

Mr Jackson appeared for Jane Annie Jackscn, who petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage \vl.h Walter Jackson They wore married in T 913, and mer since" 19U ’ ahe " respondent had treated his wife 1 shockingly. He was a “silent" drinker, and tUe least drop of liquor would cause him to lose all cense 01 responsibility. On some occasions Jackson knocked his wife down and palled her tip by „the hair. Respondent was u him dresser by trade,, put fpr the most part he had been a ■'jiiciv o:i-all-trades." The decree nisi was granted. BIRD v. BIRD. t There wore rather- unusual circumstances- in the case of Eiica Ann Bird (Mr Jackson), who asked to be freed from Arthur Thomas Bird. The latter was not a drinking man, but had an uncontrollable tornpet, and ill-treated hia wife on several occasions.) They were married in 190-1, and had one child. Petitioner stated that there was another woman in tho case, and this seemed to make the respondent very disagreeable in the homo. A decree nisi was granted. EADY v. EADY. Hildcgard Eady (Mr Jackson), who sought a divorce from Albert Eady, stated that they were married in Otago in 1005, and there were two children of the marriage. Tho respondent was employed as an engine-driver at Tawnaui, but would not Take work at all seiiously. In fact, one witness described him’ as a “loafer.” Respondent had been drinking and. would not support his wife. His Honour granted a decree. BADGER v. BADGER. Mr Jackson also appeared for Nellie May Badger, who said she was married in England in 1910 to Charles Phillip Badger. They lived in England and Melbourne, and had been m New Zealand tor the past six years. There were no children of the marriage. On account of the respondent's cruelty and drinking habits, petitioner had secured a separation and maintenance order. Later they “made it up” and went to Auckland together, but tho respondent showed no signs of reformation. Subsequently the petitioner discovered that . her husband had had illicit relations with another woman. A decree nisi was granted.

GUNDY v. CDNDY. Ernest Henry Cundy, a sergeant* major in Trentham Camp, who was represented by Mr' Jackson, detailed y his wife’s relations with a man named > Lawrence W. Robertson; The parties were married in 1904, and there were two children of the marriage. Hia wife had: told him that 1 sire wanted nothing more to do with him, as she loved Robertson better. A decree nisi was granted, McCOLL v. McCOLL. The case of Bertha Alice McColl (Mr Jackson) v. Peter Henry McColl was a particularly unfortunate one. The parries were married in Wellington in 1998, and ever since that date MoColl had been a habitual drunkard and cruelly treated his wife. The latter was in a continual state of fear, ■ and could not possibly live with Me- 1 Coll. On several occasions McColl had threatened to kill his wife. Ite- i spondent went to the front in. 1910, and since his return the petitioner had not seen him. , A decree nisi was granted. COATES v. COATES. George Augustus Contes (Mr H. Jf. O’Leary) said he was married at Ka- 1 sex, England, in 1903, to Ada Alien Contes. Evidence was given that the respondent left her husband and went to live with a man named Ilarri* at Napier. A decree nisi was granted. McAllister v. McAllister. 5 Desertion was the ground for the petition by Mary Q. E. M. McAllister (Mr C. W. Tanner) against Thomas U. McAllister. The parties were married at Wanganui in 1905, ond there ! wore three children. In 1911 the resnondent went away to Australia and the petitioner had had to provide for herself and children. A decree nisi was granted. CROSSAN v. CROSSAN.

An 'ex-soldier named Alexander Odder Crossnn (Mr C. H. : Treadwell) uluted that he married Agnes Crosaaa , at Glasgow in 1904. Petitioner enmo to New Zealand in 1914 and went to the front in 191 b, being wounded on the Somme the following year. A» the result of a disagreement, the respondent left her husband in 1907 at Glasgow. After being wounded on the Somme he went to a house ir« London and found his wife living with a man called McNish. A decree nisi was granted.