SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17941, 21 May 1920, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

IN DIVORCE. Thursday, Mai 20.. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) JEI,FS V. FITTERS. Lcslio William David JoJfs v. Gladys Edna Peters, petition for nullity of marriage. Mr E. J. Smith, who appeared for tho petitioner, said the parties were married on December 3, 19W. They lived together for somo time, and then the petitioner, when in Dunedin, rocoived a telegram from Wellington stating that the respondent was sailing that day from Wellington to Australia by tho Moeraki. Petitioner went to Ohristchurch, and found that tho respondent had sold tho furniture and disappeared. Petitioner then discovered that the respondent had already been married in Dunedin to Albort Peters in 1913. He had also ascertained that Peters' was alive in December, 1919. Leslie William David Jelfs, commercial traveller, said he had met the respondent in Christehnrch. Sho represented herself as a spinster, and was known to him under the name of Gladys Peters. She said that she had conio from Hobart. When they married they lived in Ch'ristchurch from December 3, 1917. They lived together for about 15 months. His supposed wife loft Christchurch while ho was in Dunedin. Ho had hoard in Dunedin after she had left Wellington that sho had already been married. He wont to the registrar's office in Dunedin, and found that the respondent had already been married. IJcr name was then given as Gladys Edna Mitchell. Petitioner then wont to Mr Peters's mother, and got certain particulars. He eventually found that his wife hod gone to Hobart. The respondent was now living in Derby (Now South Wales), and was supposed to bo married to another man. Archibald Slinger, civil engineer, said he know Albert Arthur Peters. He had known him since 1903. Peters was a mariner, as dock officer. Peters introduced his wife to witness three clays after the marriage. That was about 1913. Witness identified a photograph as that of Peters's Wife. Peters left New Zealand shortly after 1913. Witness had received many letters from Peters, who had joined the navy, since then. Witness produced a letter by Peters in February, 1919. His Honor granted a decree absolute. GRIFFITH V. GRIFFITH. Annie Paton Griffith (Mr Finch) v. Hugh Griffith (desertion). His Honor said that from the evidence before him it was evident that the husband intended to desert his wife from the first. He had not sent her a penny after he had gone to Australia. He granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in throe months, and made an order giving the petitioner the custody of tho child.

In answer to Mr Finch, his Honor said that an order as to costs would not be of much use, as the order could not be enforced in Australia. Counsel could,, however, have an order for what it was worth.His Honor then made an; order accordingly. HOLLAND V. HOLLAND. Jessie Harriet Susanna Holland (Mr K. Stewart) v. Patrick John Holland (habitual drunkenness). Tho petitioner said she had been married in Owaka in November, 1914. After the marriage they lived at Awamangu with petitioner's mother. They lived together tor nearly two years and two months, lie-, spondent often usedi abusive language to her and never gave her any money, livery time he wont away he came back drunk or suffering a recovery. She had proceeded against him for maintenance in the court at Balclutha, and had got an order. Under that order she received £15 in all, about four years ago. She causad her husband to be arrested for breach of the order. Respondent went away from her, with her consent, three years ago last December. Respondent had promised to pay her some money, but he had never dono so. So for as witness could remember, she had seen respondent drunk seven times, if not more. These were occasions on which he had visited Dunedin and InvercargilL Respondent had said he was a surveyor. She had known him only as a harvester, but he did not work much. His Honor said habitual drunkenness had to be proved for four years. This had not been done. He advised counsel to proceed far a divorce on a charge of desertion. If respondent had not maintained his wife for the past three years, counsel had a simple case. His Honor then panted leave to amend the petition, and adjourned the case. FEBBT V. PEBBr. Barbara Perry (Mr Irwin) v. George Phillip Perry (desertion). Barbara lU'lvor I'erry said she had been married on February 4, 1903, and lived with her husband till 1914. There were three children of the marriage. On tho Tuesday following Easter, 1914, they were living in a rented house at Opoho, and at that date respondent went to InvercargilL. At that time respondent was the subject of a prohibition order. Respondent promised to send her money from InvercargilL He sent her 18s only. This was shortly after respondent had gone to InvercargilL She got only another letter from him stating that the police had got him for not paying a fine, but that his employer had paid the fine for him. She wrote, several tiroes to him for money. She' continued to live at Opoho for the following two months, but as she could not pay the rent she went to live with her parents at Green Island. She wrote ropeatedly to the respondent for money, but she got no reply. She lived with, her parents about two months, and then she wont to Ohristchurch with her eldest child, and worked) for herself, leaving the other two children with her parents. She later heard that her husband had gone to her parents and taken the two children to his parents' place. She went to the North Island, and worked there, and her eldest child also went to work. She to Dunedin in March of this year, her father being ill. She had not seen respondent since 1914, but on March 6 respondent arrived at her parents' residence in a trap with a woman. Petitioner asked respondent what he wanted. She told him not to come inside, as her father was very ill. The woman said respondent had told her he 'had always been very good to petitioner. Petitioner replied that it looked like it when he had starved them out, and she had had to come to' live with her parents. Petitioner oontioned that respondent was earning good money, but that he had never sent anything even for the children. Respondent replied that ho would be a —-fool. She (petitioner) then started to tell the woman of her trouble, when respondent tried to get the woman away. Petitioner told the respondent that she had been in the Hospital—that was why she was not looking too well—and respondent said that it was a pity that she had not died there, and he could then have married this womanBess. Respondent was quite sober. Tho respondent and tho woman then went away. Petitioner had at the time just taken the two children from a registered home to her parents' place. She had all three children now. Respondent had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment for assaulting a woman. Petitioner had identified her husband while he was in gaol. He had since served his term. Respondent had gone to the war in the Bth Reinforcements. Petitioner received only an allotment for the child which was with her, and presumably respondent's parents received the allotment for the other children. Corroborative evidence was given by petitioner's sister, Mrs Scott. Constable Peters said he knew the respondent George Waiter Ripper Perry. He had arrested him for assaulting Bessie I Park, in whoso house respondent was living. On March 16 respondent was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. He was also fined £2 for a breach of a prohibition order.

A depree nisi was granted, to. be_ mado absolute in three months, the petitioner to hove the custody of the children. INGHAM V. INGHAM. Gertrude Ingham (Mr A. C. Stephens) v. Tom Ingham (desertion). Gertrude Ingham said they were married in Dunedin on November 13, 1913. They lived together for a week, when they separated for three months. Eespondent was to go to Auckland to try to make a home. Petitioner went to her home in Inveroargill. Respondent had sent her only £3 in all. In 1915 she mot the respondent in Palmerston North, and tried to make it -up with him, but he said he oared, for somebody else. In 1917 she had got a maintenance order against him—he was then living in Gisborne. She had received 25s a week for three months. Eespondent had then stopped his payments. Mildred Ingham, a sister of the petitioner, and married to a brother of the respondent, gave corroborative evidence. His Honor granted a deareo nisi, to bo made absolute in three months. WORTHLEY V. WORTHLEY. Janet Worthley v. William James Summerfield Worthley (Mr R. R. Stewart), desertion. The petitioner said they were married in 1913. They lived together in Kaitnngata some time after the marriage. She had to leave respondent on account of his treatment of her, but when she went back to ham he still ill-treated her. On February 19, 1914, the anniversary of their-., wedding day, petitioner got an order on the court atKaitangata for maintenance. She had not eeen hie? husband ainoo that day tfl this.

She had heard that he -was in Canada. Petitioner had had to earn her own living. Sarah Christian, mother of the respondent, said her son had been away for somo years. Witness hoard from him about five years ago. Sho did not know whether her son was alivo or dead. A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute within three months. OTHEH PETITIONS. The jiotitions, Ada Steele v. John Steele and Elizabeth Monk v. John Frederick Monk, were held over till a future sitting of the court. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 20. In the Divorce Court today H. J. O'Halloran, a farmer and land agent at Woodville, was granted a docroo nisi on account of his wife's misconduct with Frank Albert Loft. He claimed £2000 damages, and the jury awarded him £500.