SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2883, 23 June 1909, Page 38

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. Thursday, June 17. (Before his Honor Mr Justice 'Williams.) SEYMOUR V. SEYiIOUH. This was a wife's petition for divorce on ths ground of desertion, petitioner's name being AJinie Charlotte Seymour and respondent's "William Albert Seymour. Mr Hanlon, for the petitioner, said that the parties were married at Kew Ohui - ch on February 28, 1890, and lived in and about Dunedin for 12 or 13 years. The husband was a very steady man, and was always in employment. There were six children of the marriage, four -of whom were alive. After living in South Dunedin for some years the parties went to ! Green Island Bush, where the husband i leased a small farm. He was at that time ! a nightwatchir.an in the employ ot the Union Steam Ship Company. The petitioner a.nd her children weare left on the farm, ithe husband visiting them every Satua-da-y to Sunday. Tliis weni on until October, 1902, when he did not adopt his usual course of visiting them on Saturday } night, and he remained away for a fortnight. The petitioner, becoming anxiou3, went to town, and was tokl that her husband had gone south to sse about another farm. A d'av or two afterwards, however, Mrs Seymour received a letter from her husband from Hobart, in whiah he stated' that he had got into trouble, and could not stay to "face it. F.rom that day until .now nothing had been eesn or heard of him. Evidence in support of * tho petition was given br petitioner and Stswart. His Honor granted a. decree nki, to be- . come absolute after three months ; petitioner to have the custody of the children ; costs on the lowest scale. HODGSOX V. HODGSON" AXD .AXOTHER. Geonge Turnbull Hodgvon petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Axme Maude Hodgson on the ground of adultery, Herman Joseph Tietzens being joined as co-respondent. ■Mr Hanlon, appearing ion behalf of petitioner, stated that the parties were married on he 12th November, 1901. at Port Chalmers, and after their marriage they lived at Port Chalmers, Purakanui, and Sawyers' Ba.v for some years. There was one rhild born of the marriage. 'Xh-3 wife appeared to have been a somewhat restless woman, for, although she had no quarrel with her husband, shs on occasions loft him and took situations, worked for > a little time, and returned to her husband again. He was a surfaceman for the Waikouaiti County Council, a^id on one occasion she went away, and he could only get her back attain by srirrendering his situation and poms to live at Port Chalmers. After ehe had been, with him for a little time she packed up and went to Chrislchurch. Her husband prevailed upon her to come back, and had to telegraph money to her for her fare. She- retuj iisd fl.nd wenl away again, and petitioner then consulted a' solicitor &■% Port Chalmers. She went away to Paradi?o, beyond Lake Wekatipti. and remained there some months. She wrote from there sa.viri'tr slip ■was coming hack, and 'asked her husband to send her eoms clothes. She came back, and remained at home, and then went away and tcok a situation at the Glasgow Restaurant. She stopped a,wav till the 27th October. She afle.rwair<ls admitted that she had been intimate with the man who was joined as 00-respond'en.t. The husband searched the house, and found in books and other places several letters written by ro-responrlent to respondent from which there could be no doubt that ! there had been undue intimacy between them. Evidenc" was given by Arthur Tavlof. Howard Spencer Ea.nnister, and Joseph Henry "Vickers. -- His Honor said. ih« que=tion was whether there was sufficient confirmatory •avid^nc"' i a<rain«t f ,he co-respondent. The only effect o/ a decree against him was costs. It was alwajs open to a -nan. if he was not Ibe rea-l man, to plead. His Honor thought in a ca c -e where it wa.= not defended it «a? to be assumed that the man had e\Decterl it. A deor^s ni«i would be granted, to take effect after three months : the custody of the child to the petitioner ; cost 3on the lowest seolo a<rainst co-respondent. HOTTON V. KOTTOX. - This was a wife' 1 ? petition for dissolution of m-3irria<T3. on the ground-^of desertion, cruelty, and drunkenness, the name? of th--» nartics being Clara Daisy Hotton and Harry Hotton. Mr Gi)ki e on said the parties were married in July, 1896, and three children were boni of the marriage. The etory of their married life had been, from the very first, one of wretchedness eaaissd by the drunken habits of tho Inwband. Tnnumerahlo acts of cru^ltv were committed by the husband upon his wife, and culminated by the wife 1-eing lefi in December, 1899. The parties had lived together in a small house near Knox Church, and tho man, late at night (counsel 3un<r>o«3d owing to a fit of drunkenness), cut his throat in the street. The wife was called out to succour him, and wn* only very lightly dressed, and the r-fsult j of the "\posure avis that she caught rheumatic foyer. The husband did not help her at all, and sho was left in the ho us* absolutely nearleeted for three day« — she r.nd her threo children — without food, medical attendance, or assistance of any kind. A mossase wa*> sent to her mother on tlie coml'ition of things being discovered, arid while the mother was there Hotton r<^ turned to the houss. He was ih*>. worse of liquor, and created a disturbance. A dcclor wa? caMed in, and he recommended that Mis Hotton be at once removed, nncl she and her three children were taken away. That was really the end of the parties* married life. Evidence was given by petitioner and Ann An.=ell. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to take effect after three months ; the custody of the children to petitioner; costa on the lowest scale. VTIT.r,IAMS v. WILLIAMS. Charles John Williams petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Jane Ann Williams, on the ground of desertion. Mr liv.i n who appeared for petitioner, "aid petitioner and respondent were married at Riverton en June 20, 1882. Then they resided at various places in Otago until December, 1802. Respondent, without any cause, left petitioner, and had not be-sn <W'n or heard of fcinca then. At that time Ihe wif© was earthing on a boarding-house, | Eiiid ihe man was working and giving her , <-ill his M-ag-c«. She «eemsd to have been I a vc-stleiS woman, and did not appear to

get on with her husband at all: In 1902. eh© sold a portion of the furniture duringpetitioner's absence, and then left. She had not been seen since, exoept by on© of the sons. He had seen her thcee times between December, 1902, aoid the present time, and she mad© casual inquiries from him as to how the famih- and his father were. Petitioner, in his evidence, said respondent was too familiar with th© boarders at thetable. It was against his wish that respondent kept the boarding-house. Evidence was also giv©n by Angus M'Neill and Charles "Williams. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to bacome absolute after three months.