SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19717, 18 February 1926, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, February 17. (Before hia Honor Mr Justice Sim.) The case of Chas. Hector Wm. Archer v. James de Courcy, in which plaintiff sought to claim £206 16s 6d for deposit paid by him under agreement, and expenses, which was before the court on Tuesday, and was adjourned on the application of defendant’s counsel (Mr R. S. M. Sinclair), who stated that he wished to secure an important witness, came up for hearing. Mr E. J. Anderson, who appeared for plaintiff, stated that defendant had now admitted liability, and agreed to the payment of £219 8s 6d, with costs (£26 6s), which included the £4 4s paid on the previous day. His Honor gave judgment for the full amount as claimed. IN DIVORCE. His Honor granted applications to have decrees nisi made absolute in the cases of Elizabeth Hoffman and Margaret Harrison, petitioner in the former case to have permanent custody of the child. RUSSELL v. RUSSELL. Isabella Denholm Russell sought a dissolution of her marriage to John Russell, on the grounds of desertion.—Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the petitioner, and Mr J. M. Paterson for the defendant. Mr Irwin said that the parties had been married in November, 1886, and had lived together until April, 1922. Respondent had then left petitioner, living in a house which he owned, and for which she was to pay a rental of 10s per week. She had paid only two weeks’ rent, and in June, 1922, she had received a letter from respondent threatening her with legal proceedings, unless the balance of the rent were paid. Mr Irwin further stated that plaintiff’s son-in-law, who lived next door to them, couffl testify to the fact that respondent had made clear his determination to desert. The Petitioner said that she was married on November 9, 1886, and had lived with respondent in Dunedin up till April, 1922. They had never got on well together, partly, through his jealousy, and partly through his failure to give her enough money for housekeeping expenses. Respondent had threatened to leave her on many occasions, and finally left her in April, 1922. Since then she had been earning her own living by letting rooms in a house which she had purchased in Cumberland street. She had had to maintain herself practically ever since she was married. Thomas Wm. Brailey, a son-in-law of the petitioner, gave evidence to the effect that he had lived next door to the parties up till 1922. They were always bickering, and he had heard respondent repeatedly threaten to leave. He did leave in April, 1922, and as far as witness knew had not lived with petitioner since. Horace Brent said that he had served divorce papers on the respondent, who had then stated that he would not return to petitioner. He appeared to think that the proceedings were intended to make him go back. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs against the respondent on the lowest scale. DENT v. DENT. Albert Victor Dent asked for a dissolution of his marriage to Sadie Dent, on the grounds of adultery, William Dow being cited as co-respondent. Mr C. J. L. White, who represented petitioner, said that a child had been born to respondent on October 14 last, and he would bring evidence to prove that the child was prematurely born, and that the date of conception could be fixed in February, at which time petitioner was in gaol. The peculiar part of the case was that although petitioner had been married on March 31, 1922, he had previously married the same woman in 1919 under the name of Albert Harold Williams. His Honor said that it appeared to him that if any marriage were to be dissolved it should be the first one. Mr White stated that the first marriage had been annulled by the registrar. His Honor remarked that it was not for the registrar to say whether a marriage were valid or not. Mr White: But this was the Registrargeneral, sir. His Honor; I don’t care. The Regis-trar-general is not the final authority in such cases. Petitioner said that he had been committeed to Paparoa prison on December 23, 1924, and was released in August, 1925. On October 25 respondent was living in Fox street, South Dunedin, but at present was residing at Meadow street, Mornington. He had seen her in the company of co-respondent, and had noticed them at the pictures and at the beach. Asked by his Honor whether ho had spoken to Dow, petitioner said that he had merely asked him how he was getting on. He had not lived with respondent since July, 1924. Gerald Fitzgerald (registered medical practitioner) stated that October 14 he had received a call to Nurse Leedon’s Maternity Hospital, where respondent gave birth to a child. In his opinion, it was prematurely born, and conception could not have taken place in December. James Dow, warder at Paparoa prison, gave evidence that petitioner had been continuously in the prison from December 23, 1924, to August 15, 1925. John Cameron Macßae stated that on December 24. 1925, he had visited a house in Meadow street, Mornington, and had served papers on respondent. Corespondent came in shortly afterwards, and signed the admission produced, lie thought that respondent knew what was in the admission. His Honor said that there was evidence of adultery, but that the validity of the first marriage would have to be proved. It would also have to be considered which marriage was to be dissolved. 'The case was adjourned till Tuesday next in order that further evidence might be produced.