SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13983, 16 August 1907, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

MATRIMONIAL AND DIVORCE. Thursday, Atjoust 15.

(Before Ins Honor Mr Justice Williams.) RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL JUOHTB.

.William Scott petitioned for it restitution | Of oonjngal rights, and was represented by Mr A, C. Hftnlon, Thoro was no appearanco ! on tho part of respondent, 'Betsy "Weir Scolt. Mr Haiilon said potitior.or, a widower with uirce children, was married to respondent on the 20th July, 1905, at WaittToka, near Oftmarn. ' They lived at Ngapara till October, 1903, when the wife left her husband and went back to her parents. There hod been no quarrel of any kind between them at that time, but respondent frequently' complained that sho was disappointed with married life, and occasionally said she would go homo. Suspecting when fihe and stayed away' Jl night that sho had gone' to her parents, petitioner went there the next rooming, and, finding her there, tried to persuade lior to come home, but she was quite firm, and said sho would not, and was quite sulky. Next day he again tried to persuade her. to return; but without avail. Her father was present on that occasion, and tried to insist unon hor going with her husband, as it was the proper tiling ti tlo, and that she could not remain in the house. lie said she would have to ;, eave the house and she did so, and went to Oamaru, but returned to her parents' Jiousc that, night. Potitioner again and again went to her parents' placo and tried to get hor to return, and on each occasion he was Unsuccessful. On the 14th ho wont to oco her, Sho -was in tbo house, but uculd not speak to hira at all. On the 26th September ho found that while ho had been away sho had bten homo and taken away all , li'ir clothing and gone back to lior parents' house. On November 15, 1906, ho ■wrote a letter, in which ho tried to persuade hor to return. This letter was posted to her, but sho never. answered it. lie (learned counsel) understood respondent was now serving at Nightcaps as a aervant with her brother and sister-in-law.

Evidence was givon by William Scott and George Henry Scott. His Honor granted the decree prayed for. John M'Cnlloch petitioned for a restitution of conjugal rights; Respondent, Margaret Brown M'Culloch, did not appear.

Mt Baron, who represented petitioner, said 4he facts shart'.y woro that the parties wore narriod in February, 1903, at Duncdin, and immediately wont awny to Hampden, whero petitioner had a hotel. Tliey lived there for several months. Tbo hotel turned out a failure, and they returned together to Duncdin, wlioro they remained lor six months. Petitioner was by trade a baker, and it was absolutely nocessary for him to go away to got employment.' Ho got employment in Duncdin for a' fow months, and the liert placo .at which. ho was ablo to got work . was Soacliff, whero ho stayed for about seven months. His wifo refused to go there to live with him, though ho asked her to do so. He returned to Duncdin, and they again lived together for 18 - montfts. Petitioner then went to M&kkanui, and .remained thero for another seven months. He sent for his wifo, and she remained a week with him, and then said she could not Bland tho country, and returned to Duncdin. Ho ciruo to Duncdin at tho end of seven months suid lived with her at South Dunedin. All tho time he was away he used to forward her all his wages except 15s required for his own board. On tho last occasion they wcto 10 months in Dunedin, and petitionor then got a situation in Arrowtown. His wifo was .to romoin in Dunedin until ho got a place for her to live in. Wicn ho had beon up there a week ho wroto respondent a letter asking her to come and live with him, and tolling her there were two or thiee houses availublo, and referred generally to tho place. Tho wife replied to this letter that sho had not tho slightest intention of going to live with him in the country, that sho had already lived with him once beforo in the countiy, and simply detested it. Sho said further sho did not care for him.

Evidenco was given by John M'Culloch and Charles Nunn Scurr, His Honor said there had been an hccnest attempt on the part of petitioner to get his ■wife back, and under these circumstances he should not refuse a decree. The decree as prayod would be granted.