SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19248, 12 August 1924, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. (Before his Honor Mr Justico Sim.) His Honor Mr Justice Sim presided at a sitting of tho Supremo Court yesterday, when a lengthy list of petitions for divorce were heard. A RECONCILIATION. Oliver J. Lay y. Mabel Lay, petition to rescind decree nisi. Mr Haulori said the application wa3 to rescind a decreo nisi made by Mr Justice Reed at the last sitting of tho Divorce Court. It appeared that since the decreo nisi had been granted tho parties had made up their differences and had resumed cohabitation. Ho therefore asked that the petition should be dismissed. His Honor made an order that the decreo nisi be rescinded and that the petition bo dismissed. DOWNES v. DOWNES. Elizabeth Deans Downes petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Lewis Downes on the ground of desertion. Mr Irwin said that tho parties were married on February 2, 1906, at Waitati. They had afterwards lived at Warrington, Waitati, and then again at Warrington, where they kept a small farm. The wife and tho husband both worked very hard on tho farm. The respondent then took to drinking, and ho used to co to town and corne homo and abuse his wife. On March 31, 1921, the respondent ordered his wife and son out of the house. They wanted to stay j in the house till next day, but the respondent insisted on them going and threatened to shoot them. They had gone to a neighbour's house and stayed there that night. They went to the wife's parents' place at Waitati tho next day, where tho boy was left. Tho wife hau then come to Dunedm, where she had been working ever since. The husband had contributed nothing to her support since she had been driven from home. The respondent had told the wife that ho had changed his will. He did not say what change ho had made, but it was certainly not. in her favour. Evidence in support of counsel's state- j ment was given by tho petitioner, her son, and her brother (Archibald Clark). His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the j end of three months; respondent to pay I costs on the lower scale. "WALKER t. WALKER. Irene Lily Walker t. Georse Wormold Walker, petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of three years' separation. Mr Neill said the parties were married at Barnett, Middlesex, England,* on October 16, 1913. They lived: together for three months at Highbury, and the respondent then came to New Zealand. .'ln© petitioner carno out later. There were four children of the marriage. They lived together in New Zealand till April. 1921, when owing to differences the petitioner was forced to apply for a separation and maintenance j order. , ' Evidence was given by the petitioner (wno stated that she was receiving £2 10s a week from the respondent), Henry Kirkwood, and Ellen O'Rourke. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of threo months; respondent to pay costs on tho lower scale. GRIBBEN v. GRIBBEN. Vina May Gribben v. Leonard Wilfred Gribben, petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of three years' desertion. Mr White said the parties were married on May 7, 1919. There were two children of the marriage, one of whom had died. A separation order had been obtained through the court by the petitioner some three years ago, owing to the manner in which the respondent had treated her. Corroborative evidence was given by the petitioner (who said her husband thrashed her), Henry Kirkwood, and Mrs Hedges. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at tho end of three months: respondent to pay costs on tho lower scale. DUFF v. DUFF. Selina Duff v. Albert Francis Cameron Duff, petition for dissolution of marriago on the grounds of adultery and three years' separation. Mr Baron said tho parties wero married in Dunedin on November 29, 1909. Tho parties lived together for several years, but they had quite a number of disagreements. Owing to the drinking habits of the respondent the parties entered into a deed of separation in 1919. They had lived apart from that time until the present. Two months after the date of the separation order tho respondent had gone to live with a Maori woman, by" "'■whom ho had Iwo children. In September, 1921, the petitioner had been granted a separation and maintenance order, but the respondent had failed to keep up his payments. Tho respondent was at present serving a sentence at Papa-' roa for failing to make his payments. After corroborative evidence had been given by the petitioner, her sister, Amelia Barrett, and Alex. Robert Kennedy (registrar of births, deaths, and' marriages), his Honor granted a decreo nisi on the ground of adultery, with leave to move to mako it absolute at the end of threo months. Petitioner was granted tho custody of. her children; respondent to pay costs on tho lower scale. POLSON v. POLSON. Olga Mario Poison v. Victor Douglas Polson, petition for dissolution of marriage He said ho did not know the petitioner.— Mr Irwin said the parties wero married on March 13, 1916, at Wellington. They lived together for three days. The respon:Jont then went to the war, but on his return in 1919 hia attitude was completely changed. Ho said he did not know the petitioner that he had never seen her before. A threat of proceedings was made against the respondent, and the parties lived uogothcr again in Dunedin for a few days. Then the respondent left her, and in 1921 an order for separation was made against the respondent. The respondent was evidently determined not to live with his wife. The respondent was now employed at a motor garage at Roxburgh. The petitioner was living with her parents at Rotonia. The respondent was somewhat in arrears with his payments under his maintenance order, but since he had been working for wages at Roxburgh he had been paying £8 a month fairly regularly. The Petitioner in her evidence said that she. had met her husband at the wharf on his return from the war.. Ho was one of tho last to leave the troopship. When he did come off ho said ho did not know her. Ho said he had been suffering from shell shock. Ho asked her if she had any money, and she gave him about £3O. Further corroborative evidence having been given a decree nisi was granted with leavo to movo to mako it absolute at tho end of three months. Respondent to pay costs on the lower scale. WALLIS v. WALLIS. Joseph Alfrod Wallis v. Graco Adelaide Wallis, petition for dissolution of marriago on the grounds of three yea.rs' desertion. Mr Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. Tho petitioner said ho livod at Burnside. Ho was a railway surfaceman. Ho was married on April 8, 1903, at Port Chalmers. After the marriage he and his wifo had lived at Otokia, Allanton, Port Chalmers, and Bumsido. There had been five children of the marriage, but one of tho children had died. About three months after tho marriago trouble had arisen between them. In 1921 there was further trouble, as his wifo wouJd not stop at home. Tho children had been left with tho mother, and ho had consented to a maintenance order against himself. His payments had been kept up to date. Frederick Charles Johns also gave evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi witih leavo to movo to make it absolute at tho end of threo months. BRTNKWORTII v. BRTNKWORTH. Mary TSrinkworbh v. WalCer' Rowland Brinkworth, petition for dissolution of rria)'riago on the grounds of threo year's separation. Mr Bromner appeared for the petitioner. Tho Petitioner said sho had been married at Christcluirch to the respondent on May 9. 1912, and sho and her husband had lived together in Christchurch, Invercargill. and then in Dunedin, where they wero living at present. The marriage had been a fairly happy one till about 1917 or 1918, when she noticed a change in respondent's attitude towards her. In 1919 she had gone to tho North Island for her health, and had fully intended to come Ixick to her home in Dunedin. She had then received a letter from her husband as-king her to remain where she was, and sho had not returned to him since. He had offered to pay maintenance, but he had not paid very regularly. The respondent was to pay her 25s per week. Corroborative evidence having been given, his Honor granted a decree nise, with leave to move to mako it absolute at the cr.d of throe months. Respondent to pay costs on the lower scale.