SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22432, 29 November 1934, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

DIVORCE AND CIVIL CASES A civil case and a number of divorce applications were heard by Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court yesterday morning. SETTLEMENT REACHED The court was asked for an order approving the terms of a compromise by the parties in respect of a. compensation claim arising out of a motor accident. The nuxter was brought before the court iu tho form of an originating summonE, James Fenwick Martin being the plaintiff am! Ronald Barnes the defendant. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for the plaintiff and Mr D. A. Solomon for the defendant. Mr Sinclair said that his Honor woutl se; from the medical report that die child Barnes was, so far as medical man could say, fully recovered. ; Mr Solomon said that it was desired j that the Public. Trustee should pay from the amount agreed upon any further medical expenses that might be incurred. His Honor was informed, in reply to a question, that the claim had been | .settled for £l2O 16s and costs. An order was. made in the terms of | the compromise, the money to be held I by the Public Trustee in terms of the I order for the benefit of the complainant. | DIVORCE DECREES MADE ABSOLUTE. ~ Decrees were made absolute iu the following cases: —Jessie Robie Dodds (Mr E.. A. Duncan) v. Andrew Bunting Dodds, Mary Amelia Thomson (Mr C. J. L. White) v. William Alexander Thomas Thomson, John Young Ward (Mr J. G. Warrington) v. Rose Amelia Ward and William Hunt, Eric Douglas Yorston (Mr White) v. Rose Yorston and Thomas Edward Wright (Mr E. J. Anderson), Cyril Tolley (Mr P. S. Anderson) v. Catherine Ann Mary Hill Tolley, Rata Gwendoline Spedding (Mr J. N. Thompson) v. Richard Moscrop Spedding. In each of the cases in which there were children of the marriages custody was given to the petitioner. NEVILL v. NEVILL. The case in which Maud MaryNevill proceeded against Thomas Nevill for restitution of conjugal rights was again called. Mr White appeared for the petitioner, and Mr E. J. Smith for the respondent. Mr White said that since the matter had last been before the court a peculiar situation had arisen. On the last occasion his Honor had directed that the petitioner should suggest to the respondent that they might take up their home in the country. His Honor: I said that if there was a possibility of a reconciliation and the respondent required his wife to live in , the country it was her duty to live with him there. Mr White said that he drafted a letter on what he took to be the lines sug-; gested and sent it to the respondent, but no reply was received. The wife also wrote on her own initiative, but .there was no reply to her letter. On Monday, however, she received a letter that was not written »in conciliatory terms. II was, in fact, a harsh and cruel letter in some ways, but it offered to tatf* the petitioner back. Counsel thought that Mr Smith should have applied for a stay of proceedings. His Honor: You suggest ' that I should allow, the matter to stand over? Mr White: I do'n't know what to suggest. Counsel added that the wife was genuinely anxious to return to her husband and had gone out of her way to get him to return to her. The respondent was an immensely wealthy man. His Honor said that it was because the wife had appeared to be anxious to get her husband back that he thought that what was required might be better secured by negotiation than by an order of the court. Mr White said that the difficulty was with respect to the children. The respondent did not appear to want them back. What was to happen to them counsel did not know. The whole trouble had arisen through the children, and the mother felt that she could not leave them alone in the world. His Honor said that in the circumstances he thought it best to adjourn the hearing sine die. The matter might be brought before him at the February sessions if negotiations did not result in a resumption of cohabitation. MURRAY v. MURRAY. Joseph Augustine Murray proceeded against Florence Gertrude Murray on a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the petitioner and Mr White for the respondent. Mr White said that the petition was ; not opposed, but the respondent wished to be heard later on the question of access. Mr Neill said that the respondent was only 16 when the petitioner married her. It was apparently a runaway marriage, with the mother unwilling and the father very willing. The birth of the first baby apparently reacted on the girl hi such a way that she took a violent dislike to her husband and ran away on several occasions. . The petitioner said that the marriage took place at Gore in January, 1915. Afterwards th'e parties lived at Ashburton, Christchurch, and Dunedin. Prior to 1925 his wife left him on six occasions for periods of several months. She gave no reason. She was only 10 when the marriage took place. When her father approached him to marry her he asked her if she was willing, and she replied that she decidedly was not. He was infatuated with her and, after a lot of talking, he persuaded her against her will to consent to the marriage. Her mother was very much opposed to it because he was a Catholic and also because the girl was very immature. He was quite incapable of judging for himself, and the father should not have given his consent because as it had turned out she was sold. He gave her ample money and did all he could to overcome her repugnance. There was nothing in the nature of insobriety or cruelty on his part to induce her to leave. When she finally left him in 1925 she went to Australia. She took care that he did not know where she was, and all communication had to be made through agents. His Honor made a decree nisi, giving the petitioner custody of the children, with the provision that the respondent should have reasonable access. DONALD v. DONALD. Jane Bell Donald petitioned for a divorce from David Donald on the ground of three years' separation. Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for tho petitioner and Mr J. G. Warrington for the respondent. The petitioner said that the marriage took place in September, 1915. There were no children. In November, 1929, disagreements culminated in the parties entering into a separation agreement. A decree nisi was granted. BURNS v. BURNS. Gertrude Linda Burns, for whom Mr J. C. Parcell appeared, petition for a ! divorce from ' Allan Wyndon Charles Burns on the ground of separation for ; three years. i The petitioner said that the marriage ' took place at Outram iu 1931. There was one child. She did not live with

her husband, a separation order being granted in August of the same year. A decree nisi was made. COURTNEY v. COURTNEY.

Gladys Winifred Courtney, who was represented by Mr Parcell, proceeded against Thomas Courtney on a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion.

The petitioner, who stated that she now resided at Arrowtown, gave evidence that the marriage took place in October, 1923. There were two children. . Her husband did not maintain her after the marriage, and she was compelled to seek work. In 1928 a dispute arose between them, and her husband left her. Since then he had not returned. She had had to maintain herself and the children with the aid of her mother. A decree nisi was granted. MAINTENANCE;

Albert Westfield proceeded against Helen M'Gregor Westlield asking for an order reducing maintenance. Mr J. B. Thomson appeared for the petitioner, and Mr White for the respondent. Mr Thomson said that the order was made in December last. He claimed that the divorce had been due to the wife's wrongful act and that his Honor had made the order for maintenance only because of the wife's financial position. The reasons which had prompted the court to make the order had ceased to exist.

Mr White argued that the respondent was not yet in a strong financial position and had a hospital account to meet.

His Honor reserved his decision