SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19407, 17 February 1925, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

m DIVORCE. Monday, Eebbuary 16. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) MOODY v. MOODY. Benjamin Willioni James Moody, respondent in a previous petition in divorce, applied for the variation of an order for the custody of a child and for a reduction ill alimony. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for applicant, and stated that the parties had come to an arrangement. • Tho question of the custody of the one child had also been agreed upon. Mr Hay said he was instructed to agree to an order which had been drafted. Order made in terms of draftHOWDEN v. HOW DEN. Joyce Champion Howdon petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Patrick Fraser Howden on the ground of a threeyears desertion, Mr A. O. Stephens appeared for petitioner, and Mr Hanlon mentioned that an appearance had been filed on behalf of respondent. Mr Stephens stated that the petition was brought on tho grounds of a three-years separation. Tho parties had been married at Wellington in May, 1910, and there wore two children of- the marriage. The parties had not lived happily together, and had resided for a time at Halmerston. The wife had taken proceedings for judicial separation, the application having been granted. Evidence was given by William Arldo, solicitor, of Palmerston, after which a decree nisi waa granted, with leave to move it absolute in three months. Costs on the lowest scale were awarded, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to bo fixed by the registrar. OADOGAN v. CADOGAN. Clement John Cadogan petitioned for a divorce from his wife, Evelyn Cadogan, on the ground of an unbroken threo-vears’ Separation. Mr Calvert appeared for petitioner, and Mr Barrowclough for respondent. Mr Calvert said the parties had been married in 1904, and had lived together until 1916. 'The latter part of their married life had not been very harmonious. A separation had taken place, and petitioner lett for'Ca-rterton and got "vyork there. He later received a letter from his wife not to come back, and stating that she intended giving up housekeeping. Since then petitioner hod had nothing to do with his wife, nor had ho seen her. Petitioner said that there, were two children. His Honor; In your marriage certificate you call yourself Clement John Percival Cadogan. Witness: I dropped the Percival. Continuing, ho said that the last letter ho had received had told him not to come back. Ho had received no letters since the order tor separation was made. His Honor remarked that separation- had not been proved, and the oas© was allowed to stand over, his Honor stating that ho required corroborative evidence. STEWART r. STEWART. Petition by tho wife, Emma Stewart, for a dissolution of her marriage with Charles Stewart, tho ground alleged for the petition being desertion. Mr Hanlon, who appeared for petitioner, said the grounds for the petition were constructive desertion and sexual cruelty. Ho would call Dr Howlands and then ask that the case stand down. Dr Newlands stated in evidence that he was consulted by the wife in 1921, and he gave the result, of on examination. Since Mrs Stewart had left her husband she had had fairly good health; ho had had to attend her only for a sore throat, or something like that. On the case being called later, Emma Stewart, tho petitioner, stated that she aed respondent had been married on March 30, 1900, at Dunedin, and.that, there were two children of the marriage.' They lived happily together for a little while, and then trouble arose owing to sexual differences, and her health broke down. To his Honor: He went on like that tor six years before I consulted Dr Newlands. Continuing, witness stated that she had said: “You or I must go.” He said he would go. He went away tor a day and then came back. She ask.ed him if ho had com© back to stay, and ho said he had, and she then said: “Well then, I will have to ' -ahd r she went. She loft, on November 11, 1921, and went ha a domestic servant. Since ‘then she had remained apart from her husband. Her husband hod written to her,' but she had not replied. The children were with petitioner’s sister in Invercargill, and her (petitioner’s) husband was sending 10s a week for each child. John Miller, clerk, also gave evidence as to residing in tho Stewarts’ house tor a time and as to what had occurred there. He waa a friend of the Stewarts. His Honor said that from the evidence it was impossible for petitioner to live with respondent. The wonder was that she had managed to live with him as long as she had. It was clear she was justified in leaving; him the way she did. A decree nisi would -be granted with leave to move it absolute in three months. The custody of tho children would bo given to petitioner, costa on the lowest scale, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by tho registrar. RICKARD v. RICKARD. lb this suit the petitioner was Gertrude Martha Rickard, and the respondent Louis Diehl Rickard, the ground of the petition being a complete three-years’ separation. Mr Hanlon appeared for petitioner and Mr Hay for respondent. Petitioner said they were married on July 26, 1916, at Dunedin, and resided later at Green Island. There was one child of tho marriage, and she had custody of it. She had left her husband and had returned to him. Ho was sulky for weeks. They had bad a row on one occasion about the child. He had smacked tho child and witness had shoved him, and ho had turned round and smacked her in tho face and grabbed her by the throat. He had said, “What have I done?” directly afterwards. Witness went and consulted a solicitor, and an agreement for separation was entered into. It was dated; June 20, 1921. She had maintained herself by her own industry, and had lived apart from her husband. They had been getting 12s a week maintenance for the child. * Elizabeth Thomson, mother of petitioner, also gave evidence. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to move -it absolute in three months. An interim order for the custody of the child was also made, with costs on tho lowest scale, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar, Mr Hay remarking that ail he wanted was legal access. JOHNSTON v. JOHNSTON. • Annie Elizabeth Johnston petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Percy Johnston on the ground of misconduct. Mr Neill, who appeared for petitioner, said the parties had been married at Islington, England, on February 2, 1918, the husband being a soldier with the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces. They left for Now Zealand, and on reaching the dominion lived in Westport. There was one child of tho marriage. About 1922 they had separated by tho magistrate’s order, respondent remaining ou the West Coast and petitioner coming to Dunedin. Letters came from time to time from respondent, and in -one of these he admitted adultery with some person whom he would not name, A private inquiry agent had watched respondent, with the result that evidence of infidelity was obtained in Dunedin. The separation order was made on the ground of cruelty. John Cameron M'Cra-o, private inquiry agent, gave evidence as to following Johnston about and watching him. He had watched him and a woman enter the Market Reserve one night and commit an offence. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to move it absolute at the end of throe months. Petitioner was given custody of the child. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale, disbursements am! witnesses’ expenses to bo fixed by the registrar. GREEN v. GREEN. Janet C. Greer. sued for a dissolution of her marriage with Albert G. Green, on the ground of desertion. Mr Hanlon appeared in support of the petition. Petitioner Janet C. Green said she and respondent had been married at Dunedin on April 20, 1910. They lived happily together, and witness wont to Wellington to see respondent embark for the Old Country. Whilst he was away witness had received the ordinary allowance of a soldier's wife. Witness’s health broke down, ami she went to" her mother at Mosgiol. Her husband corresponded frequently with her. Then his letters became less frequent, and he asked petitioner to consent to his discharge in England so that ho might study. He was a singer. Witness consented to tills, and wrote to him from time to time. Ho got his discharge Just afteb the armistice. Witness late.never received answers to the letters she wrote. Respondent had written to her mother complaining of rho way she (petitioner) spent his money. He had left her £220 when he went away to the war, and she had sent him £22fi. Since her health had improved she had been earning her .

Mary Sparrow, mother of potil loner, also gave evidence. Decree nisi granted with leave tc make it absolute in throe months. GUNNING v. GUNNING. Joseph Gunning applied for a dissolution of marriage with Maggie Gunning, on tho ground of statutory separation. Mr Hanlon, on behalf of applicant, said the husband had obtained an order for separation from the magistrate in 1921. Petitioner said he hail married Maggie McCarthy at X’ortobtllo on March 12, 5913, and had lived with Tier at Maori Hill. There was one child, .md tlijy lived happily together for a time. In 1910 i>etitioner enlisted and went to the war, and was invalided home in 1918. While at the war ho corresponded with his wife. When he returned things were not too good. They quarrelled, over money matters principally, and finally separated. He had since lived apart from ills wife. He had paid her £2 a week regularly.' His Honor- Do you want to got rid of your liability to your wife? Mr Hanlon • No, sir. He lias made provision by depositing with trustees an amount agreed upon, for the benefit of his wife, and child. Hr White (who represented respondent): The arrangement ia quite satisfactory. Jessie M’Fariane, sister of petitioner, end Harry William Kirkwood also gave evidence. Decree nisi granted, with leave to make it absolute in throe months. LYONS v. LYONS. Sydney J. Lyons petitioned for a divorce from his wife Violet M. Lyons, on tho ground of a ihree years’ separation. Mr Hanlon represented petitioner. Petitioner said he nod respondent were married in May, 1908, and after the marriage resided at Invercargill. Three children were born. He and his wife never lived happily together from she stmt. His Honor, to petitioner': Your wife was 17 when you married her. Petitioner, continuing, said respondent was a girl with a nervous disposition. They came to Dunedin, and had remained there ever since. His wife had exhibited signs of mental weakness. Tho disagreement began throe weeks after marriage, and they agreed to separate. He was to pay £2 10s a week for the first three months and £1 10s a week after. He had been paying £2 10s a week ever since the agreement was made. They had continued to live apart from one another. Ho had also provided respondent with, a house. William Milne gave evidence ns to having known the parties for the last 10 years. His Honor: Maintenance has boon arranged ? Mr White, ns representing respondent,: Yes, vour Honor. His' Honor then granted a decree nisi, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months.