MORE DIVORCE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11684, 23 November 1923, Page 5

MORE DIVORCE

DEGREES GRANTED HUS3ANDS WHO FAILED TO MAINTAIN THEIR WIVES. FOUR CASES YESTERDAY. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr Justice MacGregor, Agnes Bedelia Cohen applied for dissolution of her marriage to Ernest Edgar Cohen. Desertion was the ground of the petition. Mr 0. Pragnell appeared for Mrs Cohen. Petitioner said site was married to Cohen in 1909, and there were four children of the union. Cohen had left her some time ago, and she had to prosecute him for maintenance. In September last he was £95 in arrears with his payments. She gave os a reason for his leaving her that he got heavily into debt through gambling. She now wanted the marriage dissolved and custody of the children. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Mrs Cohen was given the custody of the four ohildreu. “A BRICKLAYER BUT LAZY.”

Annie Hassell asked for divorce from Reuben Hassell. Sho was represented by Mr C. A. L. Treadwell. Mrs Hassell's story was that she was married to Hassell in 1901 at Holy Trinity Church, Stratford. Her husband was “a bricklay'er but lazy.” He worked for about 4f years, and then got very tired. She supported herself, and in 1906 they agreed to separate. They had not sinoe lived together. A decree nisi was granted. GAVE A HALFPENNY. Desertion was the ground of Mary Honor Laurie’s petition for divorce from Frank Titus Laurie. Mr W, Perry was petitioner’s counsel. Mrs Laurie said she and Laurie were married at Blenheim in 1917. For a while after their marriage they lived at Petone. In 1918 she went to Blenheim, and Laurie was' to send her £1 a week while she was away. She got no mpney from him, and he had not since ampported her. He gave a friend of her’s a halfpenny, remarking that if the friend saw his .wife in Blenheim to give her the coin with his compliments. She had worked to maintain herself for some years. Kate Alice Dorothy Ada Paton, waitress, a sister of the petitioner, gave certain corroborative evidence. The court granted the petition. A WIFE WHO LEFT. Henry Alexander Lukashefskie asked the court to make an order against Violet Rose Lukasbefskie for the restitution of oonjugal rights. Lukashefskie gave evidenoe that the marriage took place in 1917 anrl they lived together till 1922, when, without firing a reason, bis wife left him. She ad refused to return and had written a letter (produoed) to this effect. Shortly before she left he found hei with a man. Mr D. R. Hoggard, counsel for the petitioner, said Hie husband was 20 when he was married and the wife was 18. The petition was granted, to he complied with within 14 days. SEPARATED MUTUALLY. A decree nisi was granted: William James Irvine. The wife was Maud Mary Irvine, and the parties were married in 1912 in Brisbane. In 1919 they mutually agreed. to separate, and had net since met. Mr W. Perry represented the petitioner. and Mr C. A. L. Treadwell appeared on the question of costs.