SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20786, 3 August 1929, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. Feiday, Avgust 2. ' (Before His Honor Mr Justice . Kennedy.) BROSNAN v. BROSNAN AND , ANOTHER. Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct, s; Mr H. E. Barrowclongh appeared for ‘the petitioner, William Matthew -Bros•nan; Mr A. C. Hanlon for the respondent, ■lsabella Agnes Brosnan, and Mr W. G. Hay, for the co-respondent, George William. Spears, neither of whom appeared ‘in court. It is understood that both .are resident beyond New Zealand. ■' In reply to his Honor, Mr Hanlon and •Mr Hay said the case l was not defended, hind the latter added that misconduct was not denied..' 1 .

It was further intimated to the court that the,amount of damages had been agreed upon.

His Honor asked if it were suggested the case should be tried by the jury. - Mr Barrowclongh said, the Act provided that in all cases the amount of damages should be assessed by the -jury. ■Under the English practice the jury could bo dispensed • with in n case ip which the damages were agreed upon, but in New Zealand this could not he done. His Honor asked if it were intended to mention to the jury the amount of damages agreed upon.

Mr Barrowclongh said. ho would do bo. He mentioned that a. jury generally found for the amount of damages agreed upon.

In addressing the jury, Mr Barrowclough said although the parties had agreed* on an amount for damages done to petitioner, the jury had a free hand—it Was left to them entirely. On thiit point, he might say that the petitioner was prepared to accept a sum of £SOO, and Mr Hay, representing the co-respon-dent, was prepared that such a verdict should be given against him. He therefore invited the, jury to find a verdict for £SOO. He regretted, under tie circumstances, that the jury had had, to be summoned, but they had to comply with the law. . ,

Petitioner, in evidence, said ho was married to the respondent in 1012. Since then they had lived mostly in Dunedin, and early in 1928 they lived at Anderson’s Hay. . There were four children of the marriage. He and his. wife ceased’ Jiving together on July 15, 1027, when she left Dunedin ostensibly to go to Auckland for a month's holiday. , 'She did not. return, and he went to the North Island to look for her, without success. He made a trip to Australia, but did not find her. Respondent took the daughter, Ngaire, with her. Later witness went to Perth, At the Government Statistician’s Office in Wellington he saw a declaration made by a Mr and Mrs Francis, and the signatures were those of Spears and witness’s wife, ■ .Spears was his brother-in-law. Those people, under theihiame of Francis, wont to j Australia. In Sydney witness found that Mr and Mrs Francis and child travelled from Sydney tp Fremantle on the Mooltan, and occupied the same cabin. Witness found Spears’s name on the electoral roll in West Australia, and on going to the ad dress found Mrs Brosnan there, 'Witness asked her to take him to where his daughter was, and she took him to a school whore she was known as Ngaire Bpears. He: brought the child bank to Dunedin. She had a Sunday school book in which was written “ Ngajre Spears,” In her own handwriting. His son received a parcel recenUy to which war*

notice stating that, if unclaimed, to return to “I. A. Spears, Perth.” In Perth he had an interview with his wife and her solicitor, and the latter addressed her as “Mrs Spears” On a later occasion witness saw Spears and Mrs Brosnan together.

His Honor said he would hold upon tjje evidence before him that misconduct had been proved. The task of the jury was to assess the damages to which tne petitioner waa entitled. He need not direct the jury further, because the par tics had, fixed the sum of £SOO as fairly representing the compensation to be paid for the damages done. It was for the jury to fix the amount, and he suggested it should be £SOO.

Without leaving the box the jury awarded damages of £SOO to petitioner. . His Honor made a decree nisi, with leave to move it absolute after three months. Co-respondent was ordered to pay to petitioner the £SOO awarded by the jury. Costs- of £3O were granted against the co-respondent, expenses of witnesses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar. Interim custody of the children was granted to petitioner. BLACK v. BLACK.

Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. Hazel Violet Black; there was no appearance of the respondent, Herbert William Black,

The petitioner said she was married to the respondent on February 21, 1923. They resided in Dunedin, and there was one child of the marriage. Respondent left her two months after the marriage. He was away for six weeks, and then returned, hut wont away again in August of the same year. Petitioner applied to the court for a. maintenance order against her husband. Later she had to- sue for arrears pf maintenance. The police were unable to find the respondent, and a warrant was issued. Later on her husband was found in Auckland, but while negotiations were pending the respondent disappeared, and she had not seen him since. She had maintained herself and the child from that date up to the present. Corroborative evidence was given, after which his Honor made a decree nisi, to be moved absolute in three months, respondent to pay costs of petitioner. The petitioner was granted interim custody of the child. ' DAWSON v. DAWSON. Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of separation. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner, Ivy Alexandra Dawson; there was no appearance of the respondent, John Robert Dawson. .

The petitioner said she was married at Knox Church, Dunedin, in February, 1024, to the respondent. She lived with him until September, 1925, when an agreement for separation was entered into. Witness then returned to 'her mother in Invercargill, and had lived there since, maintaining herself and her child.

_ After corroborative evidence had been given, his Honor made a deer?p nisi, to be made absolute in three months, the petitioner to have interim custody of the child. STANDEN v. STANDEN. Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of separation, Mr H. Baron appeared for' the petitioner, Helen Elizabeth Stewart Standen; there was no appearance of the respondent, Edward Leslie Standen. The _ parties were married in June, 1922, in Wellington, where they lived for some years. They then entered into an agreement for separation, caused chiefly through the respondent’s drinking habits. The petitioner had since sup°ported herself and the child by domestic work. Evidence ill support of the petition

waa given by the petitioner and another witness. A decree nisi was granted, to he moved absolute in three months. Petitioner was. granted interim custody of the child. WINGFIELD v. WINGFIELD. Husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of separation. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the petitioner, Thomas Alexander , Burt' Wingfield; Mr H. E. Barrowclojigh for the respondent, Victoria Wingfield. The petitioner, in evidence,- said that after marriage he ' lived with hia wife at Invercargill. There were five children of the marriage. Witness and hfs wife came to Dunedin, where disagreements occurred. They separated in 1921 for six months, and then they returned, but in May, -1922, they mutually agreed to separate, - the wife to have custody of the children, and petitioner to maintain them. Since, then they had remained apart, and had entered into an arrangement for the future maintenance of the children. A persona] friend of petitioner gave corroborative evidence. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted. JOHNSON v. JOHNSON. Wife’s petition for dissolution of .marriage on the ground of separation. Mr G. M, Lloyd appeared for the petitioner, Sarah Pretoria Johnson; Mr C. J. L. White for the respondent, James Miller George Johnson.

In giving evidence, the petitioner said she was married to the respondent in 1920, They lived in Dunedin and Invercargill, and there was one child of the marriage, who died two months after its birth. She ceased to live with the respondent in 1925, and went back to her mother’s home. In November, 1925, she obtained a separation order, and she had not seen her husband since. After hearing corroborative evidence, his Honor made a decree nisi, to‘"bo made absolute after three months. DUGGAN v. DUGGAN.

. Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. Mr A. 0. Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. Mary Elizabeth Duggan; there was no appearance of the respondent, William John Duggan. The petitioner, in evidence, said she was married to the respondent at Palmerston South, in _ 1911. There were four children of the marriage. With her husband she lived at Henley, and later in Dunedin at witness's mother's, as respondent had no home to go to. Trouble arose, and respondent left her in February, 1930. He was a seaman, and went to sea. She took proceedings for maintenance, and they were adjourned sine die sb long as he paid maintenance. Since then she and her husband hod lived apart, and she had had to work to maintain herself and her children. Corroborative evidence was given by the mother of petitioner. h decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was made, petitioner to have interim custody of the children.

EVANS v. EVANS. Husband’s, petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner, Jeremiah Patrick Evans; there was rio appearance of the respondent, Charlotte Evans. Giving evidence, the petitioner said he was married to the respondent at Timaru in 1913 in the Roman Catholic Church. There had been no children of the marriage. They lived in different parts of New Zealand, and in 1924 they were living in Dunedin. Matrimonial troubles then arose. In that year they went , to Christchurch, where his wife kept_ a boarding house. He wished her to give up the boarding house, but she refused to do so. In February, 1925 she ordered him out of the house, and

he went. Several times since he had seen his wife, and asked her to return to him, hut she would not do so. She told -him oh one occasion she had someone else to keep her, and she did not want witness. In June; 1925, respondent instituted proceedings against him for maintenance and separation, but the magistrate dismissed the case and recommended the respondent to go back to her husband. He had offered to abandon the present proceedings if she would go back to him, but she refused. After hearing corroborative evidence, his Honor made a decree nisi,, with leave to make it absolute after three months ATKINS v. ATKINS AND ANOTHER. petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of. misconduct. Mr R. L. Fairmaid appeared for the petitioner, Hubert Atkins; Mr A. C. Hanlon for the respondent, Clarice Victoria Atkins.

The petitioner, in evidence, said he married the respondent on May 5, 1921. There were two children of the marriage. In 1925 they were living in Cumberland street, and stayed there till 1926, when he was transferred to Otira. His wife still resided there. The house was of three rooms, the bedroom -being on the right-hand side of the front door. In 1925 petitioner went out one night, and on returning home saw respondent sitting on Armishaw’e knee. His wife denied that there was a map in the : house, but when witness went through ; the house a man ran out on to the road. • She asked him not to tell her father. Later he watched his wife one night, and saw her speak to the same man. In October of the same year witness and a man named Richardson saw his wife meet Armishaw, and they walked along George street, up to Cosy Dell, where they went into the bushes. Witness went home, and when she returned he said he was going away, which he did, hut returned a week later. In December, 1025, witness and a Mr M'Curdy followed his wife to the Woodhaugh Gardens, where she went with Armishaw. Later in the night, when taxed with being there, she said she was entitled to go with _ whom and ■ where she ‘ liked. Again, witness saw his wife go to Armishaw’s house, where she went inside. On New Year's Eve witness and his wife w*ent to the Exhibition) and respondent said she would take one of the children home. When he reached home - at’ mid-, night she was not there, but returned at j " saying she had been first footing with friends. Witness gave other' instances of seeing her with Armishaw. In 1026, when he was transferred, his ■ wife refused to go, but when he got to Otira he wrote and asked her to join him, but she refused. In June, 1926. witness - came to Dunedin. The daughter was then living with her grandmother, t and the son with his mother. Witness took the daughter bock to Otira with him. He was transferred to Ohristchuich a year ago, and was boarding there now. The little girl was with him. In the early part of this, year lie went to see his son, who said witness was his uncle. Witness asked the boy where bis father was, and lie said ho was away at work.

Thomas Rogers, who resides at Cumberland street, next door to Mrs Atkins, said he knew Mi's Atkins and Arrmshaw. Ho knew Armishaw stayed at Mrs Atkins's hous6. ■lan Angus Arthur, law clerk, served citations on the respondent and co-respon dent. It was at night, and when he knocked a light appeared in the bedroom, and a man put his head out of the win-

dow and told witness to go round tho back. On doing so he saw Mrs Atkins and Armishaw, who was dressed in a singlet and trousers. Witness asked Mrs Atkins to sign an admission, but' she denied the allegation of desertion, /though she did not deny the other allegation. His Honor said the petitioner’s case had been pfoved, . Ho .thought both grounds , would succeed. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute in three months, was granted, co-respondent to pay petitioner’s costs on the louder scale and witness's expenses, . BOOTH v, BOOTH. Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. Mr A. G. Neill (instructed by Mr G. T. Bailey) appeared for the- petitioner, Annie May Booth ; Mr A. C. Hanlon for the respondent, Adolph Addison Booth.

Petitioner said she wps married in 1008. Her husband did not keep her, and she had to work. He knocked her about and blackened her eyes. In June, 1925, they separated, ' She had looked after the children and kept them. She had beep forced to work because respondent had contributed nothing since the separation.

A daughter of petitioner gave evidence, and His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move it absolute after three months. Interim custody was granted to the petitioner of tho thrde youngest children. . ,

MACDONALD v. MACDONALD. Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of separation. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the petitioner, Mary Jane Macdonald; Mr W. G. Hay for the respondent. Petitioner, in evidence, said she married the respondent on April 14, 1909. They lived together in Sydney, and later at Dunedin and other places in Otago. There were three surviving children of the marriage. Petitioner and respondent did not get on together, and decided to separate, an agreement being entered into in February, 1926. Since then petitioner had lived with her mother with her two children. She -had remained apart from her husband. Petitioner’s mother gave corroborative evidence. ' A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted, the peti tioner to have interim custody of the two youngest children, ' WAUGH v. : T AUGH. Wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of separation. Mr A. 0 .Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. Annie Viola Waugh; there was no appearance of the respondent, Henry William Waugh. ' Petitioner said she was married at Tnihape in 1923. Later the parties came to Dunedin, “She lived, unhappily with her husband, and in May, 1926, a separa tiou agreement was entered into. Sine? the separation she had lived at Taihnpo and Christchurch. After hearing corroborative evidence, His Honor made a decree nisi, to be made absolute after thm months. Interim custody of the children, was granted to petitioner. SPARROW v. SPARPOW. A decree nisi was made absolute in tho ease Benjamin Sparrow v. Margaret Sparrow _ and Lindsay William Essen, the petitioner to have custody of the child of the marriage. ILEg v. ILBS. Motion for decree absolute and for permanent alimony, Mr C. B. Barrowdough appeared for the petitioner, Florence Irene lies; Mr B. S. Irwin for thoi respondent, Edward James lies. After hearing counsel, his Honor made an order as prayed, the petitioner to have custody of the three children; respondent to pay to the petitioner a weekly sum of £3 10a.

1 CRIMINAL SESSION. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy.) BREAKING. ENTERING, AND THEFT. - Raymond Theodore Padman was called on for sentence, , having pleaded guilty to breaking and entering by night the shop of James Martin Wise and stealing cigarettes, chocolates, etc., of the value of £8 6s 6d. Mr A. C. Hanlon, for the prisoner, said he did not wish to say anything | about the offences committed by the lad, because he was brought before the Magistrate’s Court for some of his offences, and by the magistrate committed to the Bolstal Institute for , two years. Counsel respectfully submitted thatJiis Honor would probably conclude that the magistrate had in his mind practically the whole of'the offences at the time he, sent the boy there. He (Mr Hanlon] had certificates which had been sent to him. (Certificates handed to the Bench.) The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams said he had nothing to add to the police report. His Honor said the circumstances in this case showed a mean and despicable act, because the person from whom the goods were stolen was a blind pensioner who supplemented his scanty income by keeping a small shop. The accused had a warning ip 1022, when he was placed under the probation officer for one ydar for theft, and ho was.now detained in the Borstal Institute for two years for theft. The sentence of the court would be that the prisoner be detained in the Borstal Institute for a period of two .years, the sentence to he concurrent with the one he was now serving, THE ESCAPEE FROM PRISON. Wilkin Rainsdon Avery came up - , for sentence for theft of' a motor car, six charges of breaking and entering, and escaping from prison. Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for the prisoner, said the police report showed that this man was .21 years of age and single. He was formerly a farm labourer. He had had domestic trouble in his home. In the township one day he saw a motor car, and taking it he made his way too Dunedin. In the city he got into bad company, ran short of funds,-and broke, ifato premises. He had been in trouble only once previously, when lie was charged with theft, and was admitted to two years* probation. Unfortunately, the opportunity was offered to him to escape from gaol-*—the chance was almost thrown at him—and he availed himself of it. He .was emptying ashes in the back yard, and the gaoler’s back being turned he walked • out of the yard, made his way to the wharf, and hid on a ship. At Lyttelton he left the vessel and crossed to the West Coast, where he committed other offences. On the day before his arrest he had got into steady employment, and was trying to make good. Counsel suggested that the fact that the man escaped from prison should not bo treated as an ordinary case of escaping from prison and that the , subsequent, offence was really in the nature of cause and effect.

His Honor referred to the fact that the accused had broken into a dwelling house, a warehouse, and shops, and had committed most of his crimes by day, though one was committed at night. The prisoner had failed' to profit by the lenient treatment extended to him when ne was previously before the court, and he must now learn by punishment that be would not be permitted to pursue in this country a career of crime. It would be more conducive to the prisoner’s reformation if he were detained in a Borstal institution rather than an ordinary prison. The prisoner would be detained in a Borstal institution for a period of two years. That was the sentence upon each charge, and the sentence would be cuncurrent.

FORGERS. . Edward. Gillespie was called on for sentence for si? charges of forgery.' Ho was undefended, and, in reply to the Registrar's question, intimated that he had nothing to say for himself* Bis Honor pointed out that there wore three charges of forging cheques, which purported to be signed by people who did not sign them, with intent that they should be acted upon as genuine, In two oases he ■ uttered the cheques ■ and obtained money j : in another case be attempted to utter.a cheque, but did not succeed. These offences were serious. They struck at tfie security of small tradesmen, small ■- farmers, ■ and other people in a small way who could ill afford to lose their money. The prisoner's acts disclosed ingenuity and definite criminal purpose. He had already been' placed on probation, and he’had served a year in prison for sending a false telegram, but these warnings he seemed not to have heeded. He had. failed to respond to the effort to encourage him to .recognise a higher sense*of responsibility. ■ Leniency haVing failed, it now remained for =the court to sentence him to a term of imprisonment. The prisoner would be detained for reformative purposes for a period of 18 months. That was the sentence upon each charge, and the sentences would be concurrent. COUNTY CLERK’S THEFT.

.Frederic Arthur Lloyd appeared for sentence, having been' found gujlty of theft of money and of failing to pav certain moneys into a bank* Mr R. H,-.Simpson, who appeared for the accused, said that possibly what tempted the accused into committing the graver of the charges - was. his* coim pussion of the lesser offence of not banking the moneys. This left in his hands I certain moneys which he seemed to have taken. - Mr M'Lean, the auditor, in his desire to give l the accused an opportunity probably increased the temptation before the man. Prior to the commission of ■ the crime the accused was an esteemed member of the community and had borne the heat and burden of the day in the service of the public. He had a wife and a. boy depending on him. Counsel handed to the Bench references from parties who had previ- ■ ously employed the accused. I The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B I Adams) said he could , add nothin** ! to the police report. At one time the ! prisoner was a Y.M.CA., secretary in | England, so that he was clearly, at any’ rate at that time, a man of high ideals. I It was difficult to understand the facts i of the it was that led him into the crime or how the money had been applied. v ■ - i His Honor said the prisoner had stolen a considerable sum of money belonging to the county council- It was regrettable that -any punishment must ' inevitably fall to some extent upon the prisoners wife and son. The pain ■ that that might cause the prisoner ■ was part of the punishment he imust bear for his ~ crime. The ; prisoner, was paid .by the local body an adequate salary, and there did not appear to have been present in the case any unusual circumstances to tempt him to crime. The prisoner was in a position of trust, and he had grossly apuaed that trust. He seemed to have relied upon his neglect to, write up his books to conceal from the auditor the he committed, On the charge of wilfully failing to pay moneys into the county hank the prisoner would be convicted and discharged. On .the charge of theft he, would be senteimcd to hard labour for one year and thereafter he would be detained for, reformative purposes for. a further period of one year. v

This closed the criminal session of the court.