SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20500, 30 August 1928, Page 16

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE,

■Wednesday, August 29. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Ostler.) SHAW v. SHAW. Husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of mutual separation. Sir W. G. Hay appeared for the petitioner, Arthur John Henry Shaw; Mr A. G. Hanlon for the respondent, Lilian Catherine Shaw. The petitioner said he was married to the respondent in 1920. For the last four years and a-half he had been living at Greymouth. At the beginning of 1925 a coolness arose between him and his wife, and they entered into an agreement for mutual separation, which agreement was still in force. Since that time he had lived apart from his wife. Evidence was also given by Cyril Francis Shaw, after which his Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. TOWNLEY v. TOWNLEY. Husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of , desertion. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the petitioner, Samuel Townley; Mr A. C. Hanlon for the respondent, Violet Townley. The petitioner said he was married to the respondent in 1960. One daughter of the marriage was now 20 years of age. In 1919 his wife went away, saying she was dissatisfied, and was going to take a billet. He pleaded with her to stay, but she would not do so. Later on he received a letter written by his wife to another man. He had not seen his wife since 1919. Evidence was also given by the daughter. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. IN CHAMBERS. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Ostler.) LAWSON v. HOV'ARD. In the matter of the wili c.f Elizabeth Alma Howard, late of Dunedin, widow. This was an , originating commons, in which Elizabeth Maria Lawson, of Sydney, the child of the first mar-iage of the deceased, asked to be allow ?d a share under the will. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Lemon for the defendants, the other children or their issue. The defendants set up that the estate comprised money brought to the testator by her second husband. After hearing the facts of the case, his Honor made an order under which the plaintiff will share in the estate to* the amount of £2OO, as though she had been named in the will as'a residuary legatee for that amount, and upon any distribution she will be paid her proportionate share; costs of both parties to come out of the estate, and to be taxed by the registrar.