SEVERED TIES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11223, 31 May 1922, Page 4

SEVERED TIES

DIVORCE COURT BUSY MANY UNDEFENDED CASES HEARD YESTERDAY. DECREES NISI GRANTED. A sitting in divorce Ms held yesterday, His Honour Mr Justice S'almond hearing the following undefended petitions: WALLACE v. WALLACE. In the case Lory Euston Bruce Wallace (Mr Siovwright) against Olive Wallace, for dissolution of marriage, Patrick Cosgrove was named as corespondent. Evidence before Mr JuGtice Salmond showed that the parties were married in 191 S, living in Auckland for a year and subsequently in 'Wellington, the respondent drinking heavily and associating with doubtful companions. They eventually separated, and early one morning, acting on information received by him, petitioner found his wife with the co-respondent in a certain suburban hotel. Corroborative evidence having been given, Mr Justice Salmond granted the usual decree nisi. POWELL v. POWELL. Thomas Powell, railway employee, for whom Mr D. S. Smith appeared, also based his petition on an allegation of desertion. The marriage took place on November Bth, 1916, and three days later the respondent, Mary Clark Powell, went back to her mother. Subsequently petitioner learned that respondent had given birth to an illegitimate child, which had been registered in his name. Counsel pointed out that there was a marked discrepancy in the ages of the parties, the petitioner being 63 years of age and the respondent 38. After hearing corroborative evidence, which included evidence of an admission by respondent, that a child had been born to another man, His Honour made the usual order. SCADDEN v. SCADDEN. William Scadden, railway worker, who was represented by Mr A. B. Sievwright, asked that his marriago with Florence Gertrude Scadden should be dissolved on the ground that the respondent had deserted him. His evidence was to the effect that he had married respondent in 1893, and that there were six children of the marriage. Trouble between himself and his wife commenced in 1902, and later respondent refused to leave Blenheim, where the home had been for some years, when he received promotion and was given a railway house outside Blenheim. In July, 1917, respondent came to Wellington, and later, when petitioner was transferred to Porirua, she again refused to occupy the house he had ready for her. After hoaring corroborative evidence, His Honour made a decree nisi, to bo made absolute after three months. RUTH v. RUTH. '

Charles Joseph Ruth petitioned for dissolution of his marriago with Annie Livingstone Ruth. In this case the parties were married in 1909 at Auckland, living together until 1911, when they separated by mutual consent. In 1920 respondent filed a petition for divorce, but did not proceed with the case. Decree nisi was granted by His Honour Mr Justice Salmond, to be made absolute in three months. RENDELL v. RENDELL.

Mary Ann Rendell (represented by Mr M. M. F. Luckie) petitioned for dissolution of her marriage with Bertram Guy Rendell, on the ground's of desertion.- The parties were married in 1914, and lived in Wellington, petitioner from three months after that supporting herself and receiving nothing from her husband until August, 1915, when, under a separation order then made, she was paid 30s weekly. Corroborative evidence having been given, His Honour Mr Justice Salmond granted a decree ni6i, to be made absolute in three months, with custody of the child. MATHIAS y. MATHIAS.

Pauline Mathias, for whom Mr J. S. Hanna appeared, based her petition upon section 4 of the Act, and gave evidence that she had lived apart tTom her husband, William de Renzie Mathias, whom she had married in October, 1905, since 1918, under an order for separation issued from the Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch. The respondent, said petitioner, had treated her cruelly, and had failed to provide her with adequate maintenance prior to the separation, and since the making of the orSer had not kept up regular payments under the maintenance order. There were three children of the marriage.

Corroborative evidence was called and the usual order was made. Petitioner was given interim custody of the children. McFARLANE v. McFARLANE.

Margaret Elizabeth McFarlane, for whom Mr Luckie appeared, sought a divorce from Duncan McFarlane, on grounds similar in the main to those of the preceding case. The marriage, she said, took place in 1910, and in the following year she took proceedings at the Magistrate’s Court and obtained an order that her hushand should maintain her. He was imprisoned for noncompliance with that order, and, when released, disappeared, and had not been seen since, though letters had been received from him from Australia. After hearing corroborative evidence, His Honour made the usual order. t WARD v. WARD. Walter Ward sued for divorce from Kathleen Ward, the action being brought under section 3 of the 1920 Matrimonial Act. Petitioner, who was married while on active service, was represented by Mr M. J. Orombie. Returning to New Zealand, in 1919, petitioner and his wife lived together till 1921 when, his wife having left him, he obtained an order for restitution of conjugal rights with which his wife failed to comply. Replying to counsel, petitioner said that marital relations ceased in July, 1919, his wife refusing relations afterwards. The only reason ho could give for her attitude was her personal dislike for him; she had been living with friends, and he had been supporting her. He knew of no reason why she should refuse to live with him.

Counsel said he could _ produce no corroborative evidence as io marital relations, but he could that petitioner Was of good oharacter His Honour said ho could not grant any application of this nature without some corroborative evidence. Tho case would be adjourned sine die with leave to bring it up again before His Honour on some later occasion. JOHNSTONE v. JOHNSTONE. Marion Johnstone (Mr O’Leary) was granted a decree nisi by Mr Justice

Salmond in her petition against Alexander Johnstone. Decrees nisi were also awarded in the following undefended cases:— Herbert Charles Faulke v. Gertrude Mabel Faulke. ' Mr Iloggard appeared for petitioner. Mr H. F. O’Leary Watching (the case for respondent s solicitors in England. Annette Jane Thompson (Mr G. Toogdod) v. Herbert Thompson. Dulcie Louisa. Howell v. Percy Gason Howell, Mr H. F. O’Leary appearing for tho petitioner. DECREES MADE ABSOLUTE. His Honour made absolute the decrees nisi in the following cases: William Michael Copp v. Mabel Lily Copp. Harry James Tasker v. Kate Tasker. Hoirry Blanoliard King v. Elizabeth Ann King. Elizabeth Masters v. Stanley Victor Masters. Eliza Jane Trembath v. John Trcmbath. Claude Hobart Pulsford v. Clara Lydia Pulsford.