DISUNITED.

NZ Truth, Issue 309, 27 May 1911, Page 7

DISUNITED.

SOME UNDEFENDED SUITS.

Tbe Case of Rosenberg.

An Order of Suppression.

On Wednesday afternoon, his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) dealt with undefended divorce suits. .

A SOLIGITOk'S SPOUSE. Ellen Wiseman, represented by Mr P. E. Petherick, was a, comparatively young woman, neatly attired m brown, who said that she was the wife of Ernest Wiseman, formerly of Hokitika, solicitor, to whom she was married at Kumara on October 16, 1893. There was one child of the marriage, Sylvia Pearl Wiseman, j born December 19, 1895. Respondent f deserted petitioner thirteen years ago, and she bad never seen him since. He was served with the petition m England. He had never sent petitioner any money. Mr Petherick, solicitor, sard he knew Wiseman and knew his handAvriting. He had formerly *rv«|d m Wellington, and had been m Mr Edwards's office. Witness identified the letters (produced) as Wiseman's writing, wherein he stated that he did not intend t 0 return to New Zealand, and that he would not let his wife go to England.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, returnable m three months, with costs on the lowest scale against corespondent, interim custody of the children to be given to petitioner.

' A WAYWARD WTFE. William Langford, championed, by Mr F. E. Petherick, said that he was I a messenger employed m Wellington, ' and had been married to Florence Truscott Langford by the Registrar at Wellington' on November 16, 1903. Thete were no children of the marriage. Petitioner had protested against her neglecting her domestic duties, and she had left him about six "years ago. His suspicions were afterwards aroused, and he taxed Noah Morgan with having committed adultery with the respondent. Morgan admitted that he had paid the respondent's hotel bill at Otaki on one occasion ; m addition to which, Morgan gave petitioner a letter which respondent had written to him. Morgan did not exactly admit straight out that he had misconducted himself with respondent ; Morgan hedged a bit. He did 'not deny any acts of impropriety. Mi* Putnam, solicitor, said that he acted for petitioner, and, after service of the petition, respondent called upon him, admitted having misbehaved herself with co-respondent, and said that she did not intend to defend herself. Respondent" added tllat she had committed adultery, with co-respondent three years previously. , • His Honor granted a decree nisi, returnable m three months, With costs against co-respondent on the lowest scale.

STAPLETON "THE SHIKKUR."' Caroline Forrest Stapleton, assisted by Mr ,C. W. Neilson, said that she was married to Percival Ernest Stapleton at Christchurch on. May 27, 1596, and had lived with him on and off at Christchurch and Wellington. There were two children of the marriage, a girl and a boy, both of whom were with petitioner. Respondent was a confirmed drunkard, and used to come home drunk eVery night. He was very violent m hisbehavior, and, on several occasions, smashed everything m the house. Petitioner had had to call m the police, and several times had summoned respondent before the Magistrate's Court. On one occasion, he had received a month's imprisonment. A couple of years ago, while petitioner was im the hospital, ill, respondent introduced a woman named Alice McGill, with whom he misconducted himself. Just before Christmas, 1910, respondent and this woman arranged t 0 go to Christchurch together, and petitioner 'intercepted them. Since then he had been under another name m Christchurch with this woman, and they were posing as an "engaged" couple. Petitioner was. present when the petition was served, and he admitted everything except the adultery. Harold Stapleton, 13 years of age, son of the parties, said, that he remembered Alice McGill going to his mother's house before the Christmas holidays about three years ago. His father was. at .> home, then, and his mother was ill m the hospital. The woman would remain until one and two o'clock m the morning. His Honor granted a decree nisi, returnable m three months, with costs on the lowest scale against respondent, interim custody of the children to be given to the petitioner.

IN CAMERA. The next case was that of Herbert •Montagu Rosenberg v. Ada Rosenberg, m which Mr' W.' Perry appeared for the petitioner, there being no appearance of the respondent. A decree nisi, returnable m three rnonthsy was granted on the ground of respondent's adultery with divers men. It is worthy of note that the case had concluded, and the petitioner and his counsel had actually left the court, before any order prohibiting publication of the evidence had been made, when Mr Perry hastily returned into court ' and asked f f or the application of the gag.

A HOPELESS DRUNKARD. Desertion and drunkenness were the grounds on which Mabel Ann Hadfield sought a decree m divorce against her husband, Samuel Hadfield, from the Chief Justice m the Wellington Supreme Court on Friday morning. The evidence showed that the parties were married m Christchurch m December, 1903, and had lived at Christchurch, Wellington, and Lower Hutt. The respondent, who did not appear; Was a hopeless drunkard, and unable to support his wife and children. There had been two children and one had died Respondent was recently seen m Sydney, but had shown no signs of improvement. A decree nisi was granted.