SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16003, 20 February 1914, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

DIVOKCK AND MATRIMONIAL. TIIIIItSDAY, I'lilUtUAltY 19. (Before bus Honor Mr Justiew Sim.) HiiJ.I.SKV V. JIKMAKY. Wife's petiiHjii tor dissolution of marriage on tbo ground oi d'-sonion. Mr Hanlon .appeared lor tho petitioner, Emma Jane i hero wis no appearance of tho 1-LP.poiiuent, Prank Bolisky. Mr llauion $u.A tho parties were married at Gore on Juno 5, 1d95, and there had boon six children of tho marriage, all of whom were nviug. From the beginning ol their married life the respondent was given to drink, squandered his money, and pawned tho household .goods in order to obtain drink, 'ihis resulted in tho bailiffs being put into tho house, and then the respondent ran away, lie was arrested, and when brought back promised to do better. His wife forgave him, and ho book out a probation order against himself, but it had no effect, and ho continued to drink until December 6, 1907, when he cleared out again. He was traced as far as Wellington, but tho polico were unablo to find him, and ho had never returned to Duucdin or communicated with liis wife since that date.

Evidenco was given by Emma Jano Belisky and John Mouat. Decree nisi granted, to be mado absolute within three months. AITKEN V. AITKEN. Wife's petition tor dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. Mr Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. Thoro was no appearance of tho respondent, William Aitkon. Mr Hanlon said tho parties were married at Dunedin on January 17, ISO 6, and there had been no children of tho marriage. The respondent had been addicted to drink nearly the whole of the time of their married life up to tho time of tho desertion, and had treated his wife very cruelly. Before they were two years married ho left hei for a fortnight, and shortly afterwards ho left her again for four months. On August 24, 1908, the respondent went away, taking most of the furniture with him. Proceedings were taken by tho petitioner, and an order was made for the payment of 14s a week, which he paid for a little while. Ho then ceased paying. Further proceedings were taken, but the respondent had cleared out, and nothing had been heard of him since that time. Evidence was given by Martha Aitken and William Cook. Decree nisi granted, to be made absolute within three months. MOBBIS V. MORHIS. Wife's petition lor dissolution of marriago on the ground of adultery. Mr .White appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the respondent. Mr White said that after inquiries had been made in connection with the case it appeared, according to the decision of Douglas v. Douglas, that it was not possible to obtain a decree on tho ground of desertion, and the petitioner thoreforo relied on the ground of adultery. Mr Justice Williams had decided that where the petitioner had herself been guilty of misconduct after tho desertion had commenced to run she was prevented from relying on the desertion. The petitioner now alleged that the respondent had for a period of 15 months or thereabouts, from January, 1912, to April, 1913, boon living in adultery with Emma Harrison at Halswell, Canterbury. The facts of the case were these: The petitioner was married to tho respondent on November 20, 1899, and lived with him on and off until 1905. Their married lifo was a very unhappy one. The respondent was exceedingly cruel and drank heavily. Although there were several children born, tho respondent did nothing to keep them, and the petitioner had to live practically on benevolent aid. Eventually the respondent left the petitioner. She was enceinte at the time, and there weretwo children of tender years. That was in 1905, and he had been away ever since. The petitioner kept herself by working in a factory. While there she met another man, who offered her a home, and she accepted the offer. It had to be admitted that the petitioner had herself been guilty of adultery, but it was contended that the conduct of the respondent conduced to that end, and that if he had looked after his wife such a thing would not have happened. Tho conduct of the petitioner did not, however, affect her right to obtain a decree on the ground of adultery, and it was on that allegation that she relied. The respondent in his answer to the petition admitted the adultery, but contested tho desertion on the ground that it was not without just cause. Tho petitioner had children by tho. man she was now living with, and she intended to marry him if she obtained tho decree. Evidence was given by Mrs Morris, Daniel Salvey, and Mrs M'Ewan. Decree nisi granted, to be made absolute within three months.