THE DIVORCE COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11194, 27 April 1922, Page 5

THE DIVORCE COURT

WIFE DEFENDS ACTION DENTES DESERTION AND ALLEGES CRUELTY. YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. The case, Cook v. Cook, was an action for ' divorce brought by the husband against his wife, Mr Jellicce appearing for the petitioner and Mr Blair for tho respondent. Placed in the witness-box, petitioner said that m 1905 his wife went to Sydney for about six weeks, and when she returned asked witness if her brother might come and live with them, he being inclined! to drink. He stayed two years, but,, getting no better, witness told him he must leave the house. Witness’s wife said i fhe went she, too, would go. Coming home on a Friday night, in 1907, witness found that both had gone, his wife, he found, to Sydney, taking the girl, aged 13, with her. ' _ 1 ' - THE WIFE RETURNS. In December. 1907. witness had received a post-card f ro m. the little girl. Subsequently his wife had come hack just as suddenly as she had gone, and witness knew- nothing -of her return till he found her in bed. Connubial i conditions were resumed, hut not on a very friendly footing, witness providing a regular allowance. In 1910 a separation order, asked for by the wife on the grounds of cruelty, was Mot allowed. Sixteen children had resulted from the marriage, Beven children being alive at present. Iu 1915 the wife asked for a separation, and, upon all the household goods being made over to her, she said shewag willing to go and maintain herself: hut, in the agreement laid before him for signature, he discovered I he would have tyi pay 35s a week also. Eventually a separation agreement was signed on tne basis of 12s Gd per week. Cross-examined, witness admitted how, in 1907, he had been called upon by the police at Petone to make proper provision for the children, this be,mg the day after his wife had left for Sydney. ALLEGATIONS OF CRUELTY. Argument arose between both counsel relative to the irrelevancy of certain statements, and the court noted that the respondent opposed the granting of a decree because their separation was brought about by petitioner’s vrongful conduct—to wit, cruelty. A considerable portion of the evidence in the case was unprintable, but allegations of cruelty were made against petitioner, all of which ho denied. THE WIFE’S STORY. Kate Cook, being called, said 6he had had 16 children born, or an average of one child per year for sixteen years. When, sho went, to Sydney it had been by doctor’s orders, and 1 she had gone to her parents there. Her absence from petitioner had been rendered necessary on medical grounds, and she had - had in the long run to seek a separation, going to the Society for the Protection of Children. Petitioner had caught her by the throat and had been cruel to hen-jar, -many.-spays, ■” 'afssaulting her physically. He had frequently kept her short of money, and she-had helped his business by making horse-covers for him, he' at that time -working as a sail-maker. She had hoped he would reform in hi« treatment to her. Cross-examined, respondent denied that she had said she would leave petitioner if her brother had to leave. The fact was that petitioner had ordered her brother awav because her brother had intervened to protect her against petitioner. The case was unfinished, there being an adjournment till to-day. HURNE V. HURNE.; MQTION FOR NEW TRIAL. Before Mr Justice -Hooking was heard the case, originally brought by Arthur Hume against bis wife, Eileen Florence Hurne, for dissolution of marriage, the petition being dismissed, with costs, and with leave given to apply for a new trial. Motion to-day was made for a new trial, on th‘e ground that the verdict had been given against the weight of evidence. Mr C. A. L. Treadwell appeared in support of the motion, Mr P. Jackson being for the contra side. The decision was reserved.