IN DIVORCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2905, 17 November 1909, Page 34

IN DIVORCE.

Thubsday, November 11. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) SHERIDAN V. SHEBIDAN.

This was a petition by Mary Sheridan, of Dunedin, for dissolution of her marriage with Alfred Sheridan, on the ground of desertion.

Mr Solomon, K.C., who appeared with Mr W. L. Moore for petitioner, said that in 1883 Mi-3 Sheridan lived with her people in Dunedin, and in that year married the respondent, who was a cook on a little trading vessel about here. .After they got married they did not get on very well, but it could not be said that respondent treated his wife cruelly. He would" not work. -They had four or five children, and he took no steps to keep his wife or them, and his wife had to work. Her father at last said they had better come and live in the house with him, and they lived there for some years together. About 14 years ago, after working off and on in a fitful sort of way, respondent got a billet on a vessel trading to Auckland; but be only\ went one trip, and came back and told his wife he was not going back. She complained about him not sticking t<> his work, and he got very angry, and said he would leave her and would not come back any more. She did not believe him. He got a job as caretaker of a hall, and Hved there for some years, but never troubled to go to «cc his wife or his children. He used to give her a few shillings a week, and she had a desperate struggle to keep herself and the children. She lived with her father until he died. Five years ago last February respondent gave up his billet at the City Hall, and told the children he was going to England to see his- mother, and they went to the train to see him off. That was the last they sew of him. He never wrote to his wife or supplied her with any means of any sort. Being furnished with his ad- ! dress in England, they (the speaker's firm) had thought it better to- serve respondent personally, and he was served, and had | taken no steps to appear. [ Evidence was given by petitioner (who I gave her age as 43 years, and said that there had been five children, one of whom had died), Jane Sheridan (her daughter), ! and Albert Quine (her brother). A rule nisi was granted, to become absolute after three months.

M^LLEB V. HILLED. Petition of Alice Bui-field Miller for dissolution of her marriage with Charles Barnes Miller, gardener. Mr Hanlon appeared in support of the petition, and 6aid that the suit was for dissolution of marriage On the ground of desertion. The parties were married in February, 1899, at Dunedin, and lived in and about Dunedin until May, 1904. There was one child born of the marriage. During the early p v art of their married life the •parties lived upon very good terms, but some little time before May, 1904, respondent was in the- habit of staying out very late at night, and latterly practically all night. The wife complained about his conduct, and the husband explained that he was kept working. However, she had reason to suspect that ' he was visiting someone else, and one Sunday morning she went to the house she suspected he visited, and met him leaving the house. On" the way home he struck petitioner, and went away from his home almost immediately afterwards, and did not return. Petitioner had written to him asking him to provide her with maintenance, but be had not done so, and from May, 1904, she had maintained the child and herself by her own industry. The husband was living in the house he used to visit, but petitioner had not been able to obtain evidence of aduftery. Evidence was given by petitioner, her mother, and James Alexander Hawkins (solicitor). A rule nisi was granted, to become absoludte after three months, the petitioner to have the custody of the child ; coats on the lowest scale.

MOBTON V. MOBTON,

This was a petition by the husband. Alexander Morton, of Mongonui, North Island, for a dissolution of marriage with Annie Elizabeth Morton, on the ground of desertion. Mr W. L. Moore, who appeared in support of the petition, said the parties were married on February 28, 1905, and lived together till the early part of 1906, mostly in Auckland. There were two children of th« marriage (twins), and both died. Shortly after this respondent and his wife went to Te Awamutu, and while be was absent his wife walked out of the house and went to live in . an hotel. When Mr Morton returned he asked his wile to com© back, but she refused to go back, and said she did not want any further family. Mr Morton tried again, but she would not go back, and she went home to her mother. They corresponded, and met again in Auckland at the Exhibition, and she again refused to return to petitioner, giving the same reason. Since then there bad been no communication between the two.

Evidence was given by petitioner, who 6tuted that when he wrote to respondent stating that proceedings were to be taken she sent word back that he could do as ho liked; that her aunt had died and left her £2000. Evidence was also given by George Ludley Williams. A decree nisi was giranted, to become 1 absolute id three months.

HARRIS V. HARRIS

Petition by Marion Harris for dissolution of her marriage with Charles "William Hariris on the grounds of desertion and adultery. Mr Moore Appeared for petitioner, and stated that Mr Finch had filed an appearance. There was a question of alimony to be decided.

His Honor: Kb defence has been filed?

Mr Moore replied in the negative, and said that th-c parties were married on August 21, 1879, at Islington. Middlesex, England, and. lived together for 11 years at Hollo-way and 12 years at Putney. During that time Mrs Harris was iipon good terms with her husband, and had no reason to think that he- had been guilty of misconduct. On March 27, 1902, Mr Harris saw this wife off to spend a week in the country, and was affectionate in his farewell, and promised' to be- down to see- her shortly. However, .the next word ehe heard was a letter from Paris, dated April 9, in which it was stated that enckS-ed was £100; that Woodstock was hers ; and that she could do as she wished. That letter was enclosed in another sent to respondent's niece. That was the last communication petitioner had had from her husband. She heard he had' gone away with another woman, and she had come out to New Zealand and found them living- as man and wife with two

children, which must, from their ages, have been born in England. Evidence was given by petitioner, who said respondent had always been very good and kind, and also by Archibald Coupar." His Honor pointed out that Mr Moore could not rely upon desertion. That was before the parties came to New Zealand. Petitioner, being recalled, said slhe had been, out to respondent's house, and had t seen the person he was living with, and she | answered to the description of the girl with whom it was said he had left England, j Petitioner never thought she- would com© out here, but had come out with a family about seven weeks ago. His Honor granted a decree nisi on the ground of adultery, to become absolute in three months; costs on the lowest scale. The question of alimony was then gone ! into, both petitioner and respondent giving | evidence. | His Honor sa ; d tihe rule was to allow onefifth of the joint income of husband and wife. Mts y Harris had nothing, and Mr Harris's income was £3 a week. It would be -as well to keep to the rule, and tho onder would be for 12s a week from the eoir.rrheneement cf the proceedings; three guineas costs and disbursements.