SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20400, 5 May 1928, Page 20

SUPREME COURT.

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE PETITIONS. In the Supreme Court yesterday morning, before his Honour, Mr Justice Situ, decrees nisi were granted in the following undefended petitions for divorce:— HODGE v. HODGE. Herbert Hodge (Mr E. J. Smith) petitioned for divorce from Agnes Hodge on the grounds of desertion. For the petitioner, Mr Smith said that the respondent had no intention of opposing the petition. In evidence, the Petitioner stated that he was a fitter, at present residing in Wellington. He was married in the registry office in Dunedin in 1914, and lived happily with his wife for three years. They had two children. In October, 1917, the witness came home one afternoon and found that his wife had gone. Later he discovered that she was in Wellington, and when he wrote to her she returned and stayed with him and his mother for three weeks. However, she seemed ’ dissatisfied, and in a few weeks she disappeared once more. Witness had only spoken to his wife once, and on that occasion he. informed her that he intended to obtain a divorce. She replied, “ I wonder that you have not done so long ago.” Evidence corroborating that of the petitioner was given by his sister. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted. CAMPBELL v. CAMPBELL. William Miller Campbell (Mr T. O’Shea) petitioned for divorce from his wife, Laura Ellen Campbell, on the grounds of desertion. In his evidence, the Petitioner said that he was a baker, and had been married in 1909. Until 1915, when he left New Zealand as a baker on a troopship, his relations with bis wife were prefectly harmonious. He saw her from time to time, but in January, 1919, when he returned to Port Chalmers on the Tahiti, she was not on the wharf to meet him. He proceeded to the house where she was staying, and found that she had left Dunedin. The matter was placed in the hands of a detective, who found that she had gone to Christchurch with another man. He had visited Christchurch, but his wife refused to return, and he brought his daughter back to Dunedin. Their two children were living in Dunedin with a sister of witness. Corroborative evidence was given by the petitioner’s sister, who said that the children had been living with her for some years. Their mother visited them once a year. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. INGLE v, INGLE. Alma Elspeth Ingle (Mr A. C. Hanlon) petitioned for divorce from her husband. Norman Augustus Ingle, on the grounds of mutual separation. 'The Petitioner said that she was married in Dunedin and resided with her husband until 1922, when he was arrested. In consequence of his trouble, she subsequently refused to live with him, and a mutual deed of separation was entered into. . The evidence of the previous witness was corroborated by the brother of the petitioner, and a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three, months. WEBB v. WEBB. Elizabeth Webb (Mr B. S. Irwin) petitioned for divorce from William Herbert Webb on the grounds of mutual separation. . In evidence, the Petitioner said that she was married in 1911, but her married life was unsatisfactory because of her husband’s habits, and' in 1922 she secured a separation order against him. Evidence, corroborating that of the previous witness, was given by a sister of the petitioner. . . A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted.