SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19252, 16 August 1924, Page 17

SUPREME COURT.

IX DIVORCE. Ilis Honor, Mr Justice Sim, .presided over ;i sitting of the Supreme Court in divorce yesterday. DIVORCE CASE. Robert Charles Collins petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage to Queeuie Anne Catherine Collins on the grounds of desertion. Mr TV. C. Hay appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent. Mr Hay said Hie couple were married on March 11, 1000, and the alleged desertion fool; place in March, 1015, when the respondent Jeft the petitioner and went to Melbourne. Apparently the trouble was that the respondent became attached to a man named Mulholland. In 1013 the respondent went to Melbourne, and the petitioner started an action for divorce on the ground of adultery, but before that action came for trial they made it up. In 1014 the respondent was still communicating with Mulholland, and in 1015 she went to Melbourne, where she had been ever since. In the course of his evidence the petitioner stated that after his marriage ho and Ids wife lived in Clyde street, then at ,Sf. Clair, and finally above his shop in lieorge street. Joita Mulholland was employed in the shop. In 1013 tlie respondent went to the Metropolitan Hotel in Maelacgan afreet, to assist as barmaid. The licensee was her brother-in-law. While she was at the hotel her brother accused her of staying with Mulholland at night. She neither admitted nor denied the allegation. I.ater on the respondent and Mulholland visited witness at a garage in Filloul Street, where witness accused Mulholland of going with the respondent. This led to a light between them. Witness asked Mulholland what ho was going to do, and the latter replied that he could not afford to keep the respondent. When witness asked the respondent what she was going to do she stated that Mulholhind was a “rotter,” and she asked witness to leave it over till the next morning, when she would call and see him. The next morning she said she had been very foolish, and that the best thing for her to do was to go to Melbourne until the thing had “blown over.” Witness said there was no necessity to go away, provided she gave Mulholland up completely, but the respondent said people were talking about her, and she insisted on going away. After she went away witness started divorce proceedings on the ground of adultery with Mulholland. The respondent came back about the end of I fill, and followed witness all over the place, asking him to make it up. She stated that Mulholland hud turned out to be a “waster.” Witness agreed to take her back provided she had nothing to do with Mulholland. Eater on witness discovered that she was still receiving letters from Mulholland, and also presents. The respondent admitted receiving letters from Mulholland, and when witness told her that it had to stop she said that if he stopped her from receiving letters she would go back to Melbourne. She went back to Melbourne about April, 1915, and had not come back to New Zealand so far as witness knew. After evidence had been given by Ada Davidson a decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three moulds. ORIGIN ATI NO SUMMONS. An originating summons came before the Court, the object being to decide whether in the circumstances that have now arisen a fund provided under a marriage, settlement in 1878 should be free from any other claim. Mr E. J. Smith (instructed by Messrs Cunningham and Taylor) appeared for the plaintiff (Mr and Mrs Horn, of Christchurch) ami Mr ,T. 15. Callau for the defendant trustee (J. M. Callaway). Mr Smith stated that the plaintiffs were parties to a marriage settlement dated December 9, 1878, and the sole trustee now was Mr ,T. M. Callaway. The plaintiffs were now 09 and 00 years of age respectively, and had lived together continuously ever since their marriage. The settlement provided for the issue of children, but as there had been no issue the plaintiffs now wished to have the trust terminated and the capital fund paid oyer to them. Mr CaJlan said lie had no objection to Offer to the application, and his Honor made an order in terms of the summons.