IN DIVORCE. Monday, November 18.

Otago Witness, Issue 2801, 20 November 1907, Page 33

IN DIVORCE. Monday, November 18.

$[Befare His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) PORTEOUS V. POKTEOUS.

Annie Stuart Porteous petitioned for a restoration of conjugal lights, and vras represented by Mr Macassey. There was no appearance on behalf of respondent, .David P. Porteous. Mr Macassey said the parties we re married th 14th A <=t. 1903 t "th Eeerist-

on c _ augUc, , a gmry Office, Dunedin. It was a " marriage of necessity," but there was no issue of the union. The perties had separated immediately after the ceremony, and petitioner had gone "to Melbourne to live. 'On the 9th of July this year respondent had been served with a notice demanding the restitution of conjugal rights, to which he had replied that he would not under any circumstances cohabit with petitioner, and that nothing would prevail upon him to do so.

Annie Stuart Porteous, the petitioner, gave evidence.

His ilonor made an order in terms of the petition, and allowed costs against respondent according to scale.

dix v. Dix.

Margaret Dix petitioned for a divorce from hat husband, John Dix, on the ground of desertion.

Mr Irwin, fox petitioner, said the parties vrtrre married on the 27th December, 1900, and lived together in Dunedin for some little time. Respondent gave way to drink, and in August of 1901 they were living in furnished apartments in Albany street. Owing to respondent's drinking habits and his failure to pay the rent, they were ejected from this Louse, and Mrs Dix weni to live with her mother She obtained a maintenance order against her husband on account of herseff and child, and he ppid her 10s weekly for some four months. After that the payments ceased, and he disappeared, and although a warrant had been is3ned for his arrest the police had not been able to trace him. Nothing had now been heard of him for some years. The child was now in a benevolent institution.

Evidence was given by the petitioner, her mother (Mrs Goodhall), and Const-able But'.er.

His Honor granted- a decree nisi, to become absolute in three months, the usual coßts against respondent being allowed.

WILSON V.

Elizabeth Stuart Wilson for whom Mr Hanlon appeared, petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Robert Wilson, on the ground of desertion. Mr Haaldn said the parties were married on the 15th August, 18S5, at Dunedin, acd lived here together nntil about November. 180 S. when petitione* wot compelled by respondent's cruelty to leave him. During the whole of the years from 1885 to 1898 respondent subjected pertdtioner to very great cruelty indeed, and on many occasions she waa compelled to leave his house and seek, the protection of her father, taking with her the two little children. The father had seen her bntieed and black about the face almost beyond recognition. In 1898 he thrashed her and 'threw her out of the house, and totd her if she put her head inside the door again he- would cut her throat. Petitioner then went cway, taking her children with her. and took a situation as cook. About 1895 she Bought the protection of the Police Court, and got Tesoondent bouid over V> Veen the peace. Before entering into sureties respondent gave her another thrashing, and threatened her for having taken the prcceedinSß.

Evidence wa# given by petitioner and Thomas Henry Davidson, father of petitioner.

A decree nisi was granted, to become absolute in three month- 1*;1 *; costs on the lowest ■ca T e against re«por>dent.

CLTKA V. CXYMA

Margaret M. Clym» petitioned for a dissolution af h«r marriage with John Clyma on the ground of desertion.

Mt Moore, who appeared for petitioner, said Mr« Clyma had left her husband owing topergistent ill-treatment.

Petitioner, in evidence, said she and her nuiiba-nd were married on tho 13th February, 1877. a-t Port Chalmers, and li^ed there, and at Waikouaiti and Merton, and there were six children of the marriage. Their nvi-ried Kfe was not happy, owing to restwident's violent temper. He was in the h*bit of violently assaulting petitioner. Finally, on the Ist December. 1898, Teppondient while in a paesion threatened to ahoot her. brandishing a gun. He was diFanned by his eldest son. and, the jraighVittrs interfering, he wa« Twevented from doinsr any harm. After that petitioner kept out of hi* way. only visiting the houtee when respondent wa* not at home, and later she came to Dunedin and supported her family as a boarding-house keener. She had received no support from her husband since 1898. Evidence was given by Thomas Owen Ch/m», H*ry E. E. Smith, and Wilfred Clyma. His Honor granted a decree nisi, io become absolute in thiee months, a-nd a'lowed costs on the lowest soale agsinst respondent.

XEFFBIES V. JEFFRIES,

Ardin* Helen Jeffries petitioned for a disBohition of her marriage with Charles A. Jeffries on the ground of d^sertiott. Mr Moore appeared for petitioner, who, in evidence, stated that she w&9 married to recr>on<tent at Napior on the 22nd January, 1891. and they lived to^othcT for two years. A child v.-as born in 1892 Reopond^nt at/at her down to Canterbury for a holiday, and when 8%« returned she found that he had cold off and moved their homp to Wellington. He then B«nt her down to Dunedin to her father, and unexnertedly left for Sydney. She did not hear of him for six or seven years, and th«n. learning of his whereabouts, die instituted t»rooeedings against him for maintenance. Her action resulted in his sending her 15». but beyond that sum ho had contributed nothing to her support since 1894. Respondent waa a reporter on the Sydney Bulletin staff. Evidence was also given by Robert Kichol, Solicitor. A decree nisi waa granted, to become absolute in three months, and an order was gn*de against respondent for costs on the lowest scale.

XZmrAED V. XXKNAHD.

Robert Kesmard petitioned for a dissolution t>f him marri&s9 with PauHna. Kennard on *he ground of desertion.— Mr Moore appeared for petitioner. Petitioner stated that he wag married to xespondent on the 18th January. 1878, at Good-wood. They lived in Goodwood. Palmer•ton South, Oamaru, and Port Chalmers till October 7. 1895. when respondent went away, Saying she was going to Dun«din for a few yrottes. Although they met on several Uocaoiona aft«arwaK[s> respondent did not jtturn home, and about the end of 1896, after &• had disappeared for some eight months, definitely refused to return to petition!*.

About the middle of January, 1897, she left for Wellington, but although petitioner had made numerous inquiries he was unable to find any trace of her since then. The case was adjourned, in order to allow of evidence corroborating the petitioner's statements being obtained.

AUCKLAND, November 14.

Charles Mozart Spinley was charged at the Supreme Court with obtaining money by false pretences. He was found " Not guilty " on the ground of insanity. It appeared that Spinley suffered from epilepsy. Between the attacks he was sane, but deficient in moral rectitude. Mr Justice Denniston ordered the accused to be confined in a mental hospital during the pleasure of the Colonial Secretary. November 16.

At the Supreme Court to-day Edward M'Donald, a young waiter who 6tabbed another with a file, wae ordered to come up for sentence if called on. Mr Justice Denniston remarked that if the prisoner had not pleaded guilty he would probably have been acquitted on the ground of great provocation. In the case of Richard Herland (43), charged with a criminal offence against his niece, the jury found a verdict of guilty. Counsel asked for leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a retrial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Specific questions put to the jury by his Honor were: "Did the prisoner believe the girl to be over J6? If 'yes,' had he reasonable cause for such belief?" . The jury had ignored the questions, and found: "We think there are reasonable grounds for believing that prisoner knew the girl was under the age of 16." Counsel submitted ac evidence in support of his application that the jury had oractically disregarded the whole of the 2 -idence except the fact of the relationship, which weighed with them to an. undue extent. His Honor promised to consider the SStteT.

WELLINGTON, November 18.

The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened to-day. The calendar consists of 22 cases against 24 persons. The Judge, in charging the Grand Jury, said tnat a good many of the charges were from districts remote from Wellington So far as the city and suburbs of Wellington were concerned, there was nothing abnormal in the number of charges, flbough they were more numerous than he would have liked to see. The list ranged from a charge of attempted murder to on© of profjane language.

The jury found no bill against Erie S. Ollerenshaw, who was charged with supplying a noxious drug. Geo. Cowan, a midleaged man, who was charged with stealing £13 from David Morgan at Feilding, was found guilty of simple larceny, and was remanded for sentence. Ernest Siggleks was acquitted on a charge of entering a residence at Pahiatua and stealing a. gold watch and other articles. William James Webster (a middle-aged man) and a. lad of 17 Lamed George Dunlop were charged with Having been concerned in a number of housebreaking, entering, and stealing cases at Winiata, in the Taihape district. Webster pleaded " Guilty " and Dunlop "Not stuilty." Webster admitted numerous previous convictions in imstrmlia and New Zealand. His Honor sentenced Webster to two years' lmprisonment on each of three charges, tiz» sentences to be concurrent, but as for — c last 15 years the prisoner had Bpent twothirds of his time in gaol, his Honor declared him to be an habitual criminal, and ordered that he be detained in a reformatory prison after he had compleSod his two years' sentence. Dunlop was found not guutv

CHRISTCHURCH, November 18. The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court opened to-d«y. Seven charges were preferred against 10 persons, and three prisoners cam© up for sentence.

Mr Justice Chapman, in charging the Grand Jury, said he was pleased that their duties would be light. There were only eight indicteble cases, and bat one which would give the Grand Jury much trouble. He was pleased to notice practically the absence of serious sexual crime — not that there had been very marked reason to complain in the past in Canterbury, but itf some portions of the Dominion this had become quite a noticeable feature in periodic criminal calenders. The promptitude with which this class of crime hod been dealt with in recent years seemed now to be telling, and he thought it was becoming apparent that there was less of it now than in the past. One case on the calendar, however, approximated to thet class of crime. It was the case of a young man charged with unlawfully entering a house with the object of committing a crime, in which there was some suggestion that the act pointed to hig intention, or partly-formed intention, of some act of immorality. His Honor dealt shortly with the other cases that would come an for trial.

Martha Tainui. a young Maori woman, charged as an habitual criminal (37 convictions) 'with theft, forgery, and false pretences, was cent to a reformatory under the Habitual Criminals Act.

Leonard Burke. 17 years old. considered to be mentally defective, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and to be kept apart from other prisoners.

William Allison, for breaking and entering and attempted assault, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. A youth named William Fred Borland was convicted on a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime, but sentence was deferred till Wednesday. David Llewellyn Moore, who was charged with having discharged • shotgun at his wife with intent to do grievous bodily harm, was oonvicted of common areault. and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Edward Wlet. Joseph Francis Donelly, and Harry Wittee were convicted of assaulting and robbing William Walton, of Martinborough, Wairampa. during carnival week. Donnelly was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, and the other two to two years each.