SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3195, 9 June 1915, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. Tuesday, Mat 25. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) LEHMANN V. LEHMANN.

Isabella Eagle Lehmann, petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Robert Christopher Lehmann, on the ground of habitual drunkenness and habitual cruelty. Mr Hanlon appeared for petitioner, and there was no appearance of or on behalf of respondent. Petitioner, in her evidence, stated that she was married to respondent on September 3, 1908, and there were no children of the marriage. Her husband was always drinking 'and illtrcating her. At first they -Jived at Mornington, and ho was then cooking at a boarding-house. Respondent at that time did nor strike her, but he abused her. They left Mornington and went into business in Princes street in 1909, and respondent continued drinking, and began to treat petitioner very cruelly. Ho used to hit her and choke her. They remained in .the boarding-house for two years and a-half, and this sort of treatment continued, though respondent promised to mend his ways. He was extremely jealous, and on one occasion he was going to cut petitioner with a razor so that no one would look -at her. On one occasion, in 1211, a maid got between them and received a blow intended for petitioner. On another occasion respondent interfered with one of the maids, and on petitioner interfering, respondent struck her. In one instance he caught her by the throat and locked her up. They left business and lived privately in Hope street, and then at Anderson Bay, where he brought two men home with him. They commenced drinking, and on petitioner complaining about it respondent struck her over the head. After this they lived in Bay View road with petitioner’s mother, and later in Fawcett street, and respondent continued to illtreat petitioner. She left respondent in June, 1913, and he continued cooking for his sister at a restaurant where the Grand Picture Palace now stands. Petitioner believed that respondent was now on one of the boats. Evidence was also given by petitioner’s .mother, Ellon Henderson Ravenwood who stated that on one occasion she and her daughter were ready to go out in the afternoon when respondent came home the worse for drink. Soon after witness heard a fall, and going to the bedroom door found that respondent had locked it. She forced it open and then saw petitioner on the floor, with respondent sitting on top of her. "Witness pulled him off. Elizabeth Henderson Wooldrige, Maud Tobin, and Henry Clay Ravenwood gave further evidence. His Honor said that petitioner had proved that from February, 1909, until Juno, 1913. the husband bad been habituidry drunk and guilty of habitual cruelty to her. A decree nisi would be granted, to bo asked to be made absolute after three months, with costs against respondent on the lowest scale; disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar. TRIPP V. TRIPP This was also a wife’s petition for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of delertion, the names of the parties being Mary Marion Tripp and James Thomas Tripp. There was no appearance of respondent. i Mr C. E. Davey, who appeared lor the

petitioner, said this was a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, and for the custody of the infant children The parties were married in March, 1899, at Caversham, and there were three children of the marriage—one girl aged 15 years, one girl aged 13 years, and one boy 10 years of age. The evidence would show that the parties lived together in Oamaru until ISO 4, when the conduct of the husband forced the wife to go to the Magistrate’s Court and got an order for separation on the ground of cruelty and failure to provide. About a year after this the parties lived together again, but with no better result, because in 1906 a second order was made by the magistrate at Oamaru, and when petitioner sought to enforce the order in 1907 respondent left Oamaru and came to Dunedin, whore all trace of him was lost. He took with him the boy, then about two years old. and neither husband nor child had been seen by petitioner or anyone else since. It was not known whether respondent was in the dominion. Petitioner had supported herself bv her own efforts. Evidence was given by petitioner and by Ellen Clark, daughter of petitioner by a previous marriage. His Honor considered that a case of desertion had been made out, and granted a decree nisi with leave to make it absolute after three months, petitioner to have the custody of the two daughters of tiio marriage ; costs against respondent on the lowest scale, disbursements and witness’s expenses to be fixed by the registrar. THOMAS V. THOMAS. Margaret Thomas petitioned the court to grant a dissolution of her marriage with "William John Henry Thomas on the ground of misconduct. Mr Irwin said that the parties wore married on June 7, 1910. and respondent was a_ labourer They lived together at Dunedin, Woodlands, Lawrence, Kurow, and Clarks Junction. They continued to reside together until February 2, 1914, and on that date respondent disappeared, and some months afterwards petitioner discovered that he was living with another woman in Union street. A resident of Union street would say that these two lived there together as man and wife. Respondent took the house and paid the rent. Subsequently respondent enlisted to go to the front. He enlisted three times altogether, and each time he deserted. Ho had now gone away 'with the Fourth Reinforcements. He (counsel) understood that respondent was a “waster.” He first enlisted under his own name, and later on under the name of the woman with whom he lived. Captain Fraser would give evidence as to the respondent’s enlisting and as to his having been arrested and sent back to Trentham. Respondent had had ample time to file a defence to the case before ho wont away, because he was about for weeks after the service of the petition. Petitioner, in her evidence, stated that on one occasion respondent had taken her ring off her finger, and that later she had taken it off the finger of the woman he was living with. Petitioner discovered that respondent gave half of his pay to this woman. There were no children of the marriage. Further evidence was given by Janet Pratt, Captain Fraser, and Clarence Anderson, law clerk. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute after throe months; costs against respondent on the lowest scale, disbursements and witness’s expenses to be fixed by the registrar.

BLYTHE V. BLYTHE. Andrew David Blythe petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Mabel Blythe on the ground of misconduct, Isaac Wildash being joined as co-respondent. Mr Wilkinson, who represented petitioner, said that the parties had lived in Blenheim for some years prior to the marriage, which took place on January 4, 1907. Petitioner was only 21 years of age at the time of the marriage, and respondent was 24. They lived together at respondent’s parents’ house for a few months, and petitioner loft for Wellington in search of work. He saw his wife there some time afterwards, but in the meantime she had obtained an order for maintenance. Notwithstanding this they lived together for a week or two. condoning the order, and later petitioner'went to Foxton, stating that he would send for respondent when he could. He obtained employment there, and asked her to come to him, but she declined. He then stopped corrosnonding with his wife, and in about throe years’ time came to Otago. All the time ho was down here ho had not written to his wife, and having heard that she was living with another man, he wrote to her. and she ’•''plied admitting that she was living with mother mm. and had borne two children to him. In a subsequent letter she disclosed the name of this man. The evidence, counsel explained, would be in part the evidence of John Bird, retired constable. Evidence was given by petitioner. His Honor, in giving his decision, said notitioner had established that hs wife had been guilty of adultery. That was clear in the letter written by her. and also by the evidence of ex-Constable Bird, which showed that respondent and co-respondent had been living together as husband and wife for more than three years. The only question was the conduct of petitioner as to inducing or contributing to what was complained of. He this Honor) certainly thought the evidence went to show that petitioner had neglected his wife for a considerable time. He had bJt her with her mother to got work in Wellington, and had apparently made no attempt to got*his wife to come and live with him. Later ho had got some work in Foxton, and had arranged for his wife to ioin him, but ho (his Honor) did not think ho really made any serious attempt to get her to come and live with him. Ho thought petitioner’s conduct, if it had not induced to adultery, had contributed to it, because bo had loft his wife to look after herself. His Honor thought, looking at the circumstances of the case, that it was one in which discretion ought to bo exercised in favour of the petitioner. It was clear on the.evidence that there had been no chance of those people coming together as husband and wife. Apparently two children had been born as a result of respondent and corespondent living together, and in the interests of public morality it did not seem right to refuse tho application. A decree nisi would bo granted, with leave to make it absolute after tlfrec months. His Honor expressed tho opinion that it was not a caso for granting costs against the co-respondent.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Friday, May 28. (Boforo His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) BINGHAM AND Cp. V. NEW ZEALAND EXPRESS COMPANY. Claim for £2OO damages. Mr W. C. MacGregor appeared for tho plaintiffs, Bingliarn and Co.; tho Hon. J.

MacGregor for tho defendants, the New Zealand Express Company. Mr W. C. MacGregor said this was an action for £2OO, damages for negligence, 'iho facts were simple, though rattier unusual. The plaintiff was the owner of a monumental yard m Moray place, Dunectin, containing a large number of valuable monuments, gravestones, and so on, and tho defendants were tho well-known carrying company. On January 18 certain marbles wore being landed from a stop, consigned to the plaintiff, and tho defendant’s carter brought two cartloads to the yard on that day. He took the first load in the morning and tho second about noon. In the course of getting out of tho yard tho accident happened. Ho had taken a load of marble, and gone through a road, as it was called, in the middle of tho yard to the crane, which was ready to.unload the curt. Tho blocks of marble were unloaded, and the driver then started to back out on a winding track, but apparently misjudged his position, and, instead of backing down tho road, ho backed into two carved monuments, which wore standing close by, tipping them over. These two knocked over tno next rank, and tho result was that all the monuments in tho lino of movement were toppled over. Some of them wore destroyed, some were chipped, and all wore more or less injured. The plaintiff, who was working in the yard with some of liis men, saw the occurrence. Tho manager of the company was sent for, and, after looking at the damage, asked plaintiff to send in his claim for the damage. When tho monuments came to be examined, it was found that practically all of them were destroyed for saleable purposes. A damaged monument could not be erected over a tomb. Negotiations ensued, and attempts were made to settle tho matter, but the parties could not agree. Tho plaintiff alleged negligent conduct on tho part of the carter, and, in its defence, the company alleged contributory negligence, which was in itself an admission of negligence on its part.

Alter hearing evidence the court was ad journod.

THE INVERCARGILL SITTINGS

The quarterly meeting of • the Supremo Court was opened at Invercargill on Tuesday. The following is the list of civil cases :

Kilpatrick v. Wallace, claim £550, damages for seduction. Crow v. Winter, claim £325, damages for breach of agreement. M'Donald v. Laing, claim £IOO, for libel.

Bricknell and another v. Enright, claim £l9B, rent due under lease, and £23 15s 7d, rates paid by plaintiff. Moran v. Watson and another (executors of will of Denis Boyle), claim £226, for services rendered as housekeeper and tor nursing and attendance on deceased. Kennedy v. Borough of Gore, claim £IOO, damages and injunction restraining the defendants from discharging drainage on a section.

George Yipi Yin v. Colcctor of Customs, appeal from Justice of the Peace Act from decision of the magistrate at Invercargill (conviction under Opium Act)