SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3584, 21 November 1922, Page 42

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. (Before His Honor, the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout.) The Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, sat in the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning to hear a number of undefended divorce petitions. MTIIERSON v. MTHERSON. The case of M’Pherson v. M’Pherson was a wife’s petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. Mr Allan, for the petitioner, said tliat the parties were married ■ in March, 1913. In July, 1916, the respondent, who had been carrying on business as an agent, got into financial difficulties, and he was arrested on a charge of misappropriating hnoney. He was remanded on bail to appear at Invercargill, but he disappeared before the time fixed, and had never been seen or heard of since by petitioner. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but the police had been unable to trace him. Lily M'Pherson, the petitioner, said she was married to John Steven M’Pherson in March, 1913. There were two children of the marriage. Her husband carried on business in Invercargill. He was arrested for misappropriation, but subsequently disappeared, and she had neither seen nor heard anything of him since. John Williamson, ranger and sanitary inspector for Taieri County Council, said he was a brother-in-law of the petitioner. In 1916 M’Pherson was arrested and remanded from Dunedin to Invercargill. He disappeared before the case came on, and witness had never heard of him since. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. PARSONS v. PARSONS.

Florence Maude Parsons petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Frederick Grasby Parsons on the grounds of desertion and misconduct. Mr 11. Brasch appeared for the petitioner. Florence Maude Parsons said shp was married to the respondent on March 6, 1907. There were three children of the marriage from eight to 14 years of age. She identified a photograph produced as a good likeness of her husband. After the marriage she lived for some years in Dunedin. Her husband Hist his work through drinking, and they went to Timaru. He was drinking again there, and got into financial difficulties. They had to sell up the home to pay the rent and the debts. Her husband remained in Timaru, and she and the children came back to her father’s. home in Dunedin. After three months she had an order made against her husband for maintenance, but he did not pay regularly under it. He enlisted and went to tho front. He returned in January, 1919, and she went to meet him at the station. She had heard that he had contracted venereal disease. She took him to her home, but they did not live together* as man and wife. She went away for a fortnight to think over what was best to be done. He did not make any objection to her going. When she returned she found he had gone away on file Tahiti as a butcher. He left £8 a month for the support of her sister and the children, but made no arrangement for her. Witness sold up the home, and wrote to her husband about the position. He returned in July, 1919, and wanted her to go back to him! lie had no home to offer. He admitted on one occasion that what she had heard about his health was true. He had not contributed to her maintenance in anyway and she had not applied for an order tor herself. Nellie Haym.es, sister of ihe petitioner, said she had lived with Mr and Mrs Parsons after their marriage in Dunedin and in limaru and later in Dunedin with her sister. _ Parsons drank heavily in both places, and after his return to Dunedin from the war. He did not make any complaint about his wife going away for the fortnight. He i-i , a for witness, and the three children telling her if it was not, enough she could go out and work. He told witness to burn his wife out when she returned and said he wanted to get away before she came back. Witness drew the money and gave it to Mrs Parsons. Of if £3 a month went to support two of th e children ill a home. When Parsons returned in July the payments ceased. His Honor said there was no appearance of respondent, and he had not pleaded any defence. A decree nisi would be granted to be made absolute in three months. WILMOTT v. WILMOTT. Jane Ann Ilalliday Wilmott petitioned for divorce from George Stanley Butler Wilmott.—Mr Irwin for petitioner, said this was a case in which adultery was alleged June Ann Ilalliday Wilmott- said six” had been married on February 27, 1919. They had lived in Dunedin and Clyde. There were no children of the marriage. Her husband was a seaman, and in December, 1919, he was on the Mokoia, and was hi Napier about Christmas. When he returned in, January he did not look well. He consulted Dr Harrison, and told her he had got a disease from unclean bedclothes. He got medicine from a prescription of Dr Harrison’s, but she did not suspect anything. He continued to go to sea. and was employed at Clyde on Government works. It was there towards tire end of IS2O that she discovered there was something seriously wrong with him. She saw Dr Harrison, who said he could not toil her anything about her husband. She got a copy of the prescription fom the chemist. When she taxed her husband he admitted misconducting himself in Napier with a woman of name unknown. Her husband asked her to go back to him, but she refused. When last she heard of him he was in Whangarei, Dr Evans examined the prescription referred to, and said it was the usual preparation for gonorrhea. It was evidently a prescription given to a man suffering from an acute form of the disease. George Charles Hoffman, chemist, produced his prescription book, and said the prescription was a copy of one dated Fob-

ruary 8, 1920, for ‘‘Mr Wilmott.” and made out by “T. H.,” which were recognised as the initials of Dr Harrison. Oswald John Cook, law clerk, in the employ of the petitioner’s solicitors, said he knew the respondent, and served him with the summons. He admitted he had misconducted himself in Napier and had contracted disease. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. THEN GROVE v. TR ENG ROVE. John Trengrove petitioned for divorce from Violet Eliza Gamelia Trengrove, Maitland Iloggan being joined as the co-respon-dent. —Mr Irwin appeared for the petitioner. John Trengrove said he was married to the respondent on October 18, 1911, at All Saints’ Ohurch. After marriage they lived at Christchurch and Dunedin, and there were two children born to them. A little over two years ago they disagreed and separated. He allowed his wife £lO a month. She had been living in various places, but not generally in Dunedin. Corespondent and his wife had been in Dunedin since the petition was issued, but he had not seen them together. He caused a private inquiry agent in Christchurch to watch his wife on account of what he had been told. Bert William Munns, private inquiry agent, of Christchurch, said that at the beginning of July last he had instructions to wateli respondent, who was living in Worcester street. She had a particular friend named Mrs Sutherland. On August 11 he saw Mrs Trengrove in Cathedral square about 7.20 p.m. She was in company of co-respondent, Mrs Sutherland, and an old gentleman, Mr George Trengrove, a brother of petitioner, and a Mr Hillver were with him. The four they were watching took a taxi car towards New Brighton. They waited till the oar returned. and then took a tram to Mrs Sutherland’s house. There they saw Mrs Trengrove and Maitland Iloggan come out of the hack door “smoking and smooging.” This would be just on 9 o’clock. Mr Hillyer left. At about 1C.45 p.m. the light went out, in the sitting room and lights appeared in Mrs Trengrove’s bedroom. Mr Trengrove and he went and looked in at Mrs Trengrove’s bedroom, at the side of the house, and saw Mrs Trengrove in pyjamas, and the co-respondent undressing. They were burtgalow windows, and they could not, see the whole room. Tho light went out about 11 o'clock. They waited some time and then went home. A few days later he saw Mrs Trengrove seeing co-respondent., who was a commercial traveller. off at the station. The respondent went t o the ‘ bar of Warner’s Hotel pretty often. She was addicted to smoking, but, he could not say she was addicted to drink. George Trengrove. clerk, residing in Christchurch, a. brother of petitioner, corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness. He had seen respondent and corespondent, together frequently in Christchurch. He had also seen her much in the company of Mrs Sutherland. A decree nisi was granted, to become absolute after three months. BOUQUET v. BOUQUET. Amy Bouquet petitioned for divorce from Joseph Albert Bouquet on the ground of desertion. Mr Irwin appeared for petitioner. ' Amy Bouquet said she was married on July 15, 1911. They lived together in Fairlie and Dunedin. There were two children. but one had died. Her husband was a labourer. She got on fairly well with him until 1913, when he left her. and she had him arrested ill Oamaru and brought back to Dunedin A maintenance order was made against him, but. she forgave him and went back to live with him- He left her again without, warning in October, 1913, ami she had not heard from him since. She lived first at the Oval Board-ing-house with a Mrs Carr, in Princess street south, and then with her parents, but maintained herself and the child at domestic service. Annie Carr said that in 1913 she was proprietress of .the Oval Boarding-house. She knew respondent very well. He was very lar.y, and would not work. He would go away without saying anything. Bouquet left his wife in 1913 for no reason that witness could see. Mrs Bouquet had been working very hard for her child and herself ever since. Robert Hamilton Gifford, corporation employee, the father of the petitioner, said he had gone to the police in 1912 to get a warrant for Bouquet’s arrest. He had kept his daughter’s child, and his home was her headquarters. A decree nisi was granted, to he made absolute in three months. BRADLEY v. BRADLEY. Joseph Reginald Bradley petitioned for divorce from Isabella Ada Bradley on the ground of desertion. Mr Finch appeared for petitioner. Joseph Reginald Bradley, painter, of Balclutha, said he returned from the war in January, 1919. He went on a holiday to Christchurch, and was married to petitioner at the legisirar’s office there on March 21. 1919. They stayed in Christchurch, and then returned to Dunedin. Mrs Bradley was the only daughter of Mr and Mrs Burrell, who keep the Shamrock Hotel. She stayer! at home while he went to get a home at Balelutha. He got a home, and she joined him there. She was quite content at first, hut about every fortnight she ! went in to Dunedin for a few days. In | July, 1919, they both came in to Dunedin. as he had work there that lasted about five weeks. She did not return to Balelutha. and later she refused to go back borne with him. Her mother and she came down and saw him in Balelutha. After a fortnight his wife packed up all her things and said she was not going to stay with him in Dunedin. Her mother came out in a taxi and took her back to Dunedin. He wrote her, but she refuser! to return, and sent him a letter from her solicitors. Messrs Irwin and Irwin, asking for the, return of her goods. He replied through Mr Grigor. Copies of these letters wore_ handed in. She said Balelutha was too quiet for her and she wanted more life. His Honor said it was not usual to grant a decree on the tsstimony of the petitioner aloneMr Finch said there was the letter saying that respondent refused to go hack to her husband. Ho called Horace Brent, clerk to .Messrs Irwin and Irwin, who swore to Mr Irwin’s signature on the letter. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS. William Lambert Williams petitioned for the restitution of conjugal rights with Annie Adelina, Williams. Mr F. B. A damn appeared for the petitioner.

William Lambert Williams said he was married to respondent on June 20. 1913. lie lived with his wife in Oamaru for three years afterwards and then in Blenheim for two years. He had seven months in camp and then spent another two years in Blenheim. Prior to November of last year he spent 10 months in Dunedin. There were no children of the marriage. At first they got along all right, but afterwards his wife grew discontented and unwilling to settle anywhere. She could never get enough money to spend. About July last year his wife went to Oamaru to her own people because he had to give up the house they were in. He considered she waa in need of a holiday. She returned in November to Dunedin. On November 29 he got a telegram from her mother in Oamaru 9aying she had left 10 days previously to go to him but he had not seen anything of her. Ho went out to Newbury’s in South Dunedin and found his wife was staying there under her maiden name as young Walter Newbury’s fiancee. She had an .engagement ring. With difficulty he persuades! her to return to him, and she stayed a few days in the North-East Valley. She wanted permission to go to work and he consented. She went to the Leviathan Hotel and stayed in Tennyson street with another girl who was working there. From that time onwards they had not lived together, and she refused to come to him. He let her go to work on the understanding that she should 'use her married name and not go with young Newbury, but she had not kept that undertaking, in February last he demanded that- she should return and gave her till Easter to think it over. She did not return. In July she was working at the Oban Hotel under her maiden name of Lena Raven and he understood site was still working there. He had again asked her to return and given her time to think it over. Finally she absolutely refused to come back, and said she could look after herself quite well. She admitted she had had no reason for leaving him. and said after what had happened he could not think the same of her. On October 8 he had a letter handed to her at the Oban Hotel asking for resumption of cohabitation. William Douglas Taylor, law clerk to Messrs Adams Brop, gave evidence to handing the letter to respondent, in presence of petitioner. She said her husband knew quite well she wpuld never return to him. His Honor said he would make the usual order in this case.

The Supreme Court was occupied on Wednesday in hearing further applications for divorce. All the cases were undefended. SMITH v. SMITH. Mabel Smith v. James Pearson Smith. Petition for dissolution of marriage on trie ground of adultery. 3lr Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. Mabel Smith said that she was married on April 14, 1913. There was one child of the marriage. Her husband was a lighthouse keeper, and after the marriage they lived at Waipapa Point and at Cuvier Island. Her husband went to the war in 1916 and returned in 1913. Shortly after he bought a farm at Waitati. and petitioner lived with him there for about three months. Re spondent then went to Auckland to take up a position in the Customs Department After the respondent had returned from the front she discovered letters to him from a girl. She spoke to him about it, but, he said that she was worrying needlessly. Respondent made her very little allowance, and in consequence of certain suspicions which she had she instituted inquiries and then took proceedings against him. After citation was served on her husband he came to Dunedin to see her. lie said that she was accusing him unjustly—that he was not guilty. The child which respondent had registered as belonging to her was not her child. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with lea\ e to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. M’PHAIL v. M'PITAIL. Agnes Jane V1 1 [’hail v. Robert Corson Anderson M’Phail, Petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion. Mr W. G. Hay appeared for petitioner. Mr J. S. Sinclair said that no defence had been filed by respondent. He (counsel) appeared to ask that the respondent might be given the custody of the children. Mr I lay said that the petition was based on desertion commencing in June. 1918. The respondent had been served in San Francisco, where he had been living for some time past. Recently the respondent had started proceedings for divorce, but he (counsel) did not know how far he had got.. Of course the divorce laws were different in America. The petitioner said that she was married on April 23, 1902. They resided at Dunedin and the Bluff, and in ISO 7 they went to Roxburgh, where the respondentmanaged his father-in-law’s fruit farm for some time. There were two children of the marriage. The respondent left her before the birth of the second child, saying that he wanted to be by himself. lie remained in Roxburgh till the death of her father, in 1917, and in June, 1918. he went to America. Her husband was a marine engineer and he previously visited America in 1903. He came back in November. 1919 —that was on the occasion of the second visit. He did not communicate with her while he was away nor did he provide any money, but he had continued the ICs per week which lie had been providing for the keep of the children. The payments ceased at, the end of August, 1919. On his return from America on his second visit he had come to his mother-in-law’s home at Roxburgh. where she (witness) was staying. He had told her again that he was finished with her. lie again left for America. She had not. since heard from him nor had ho sent her any money. Her husband had liegun proceedings against her in America, but she did not know whether he had obtained a divorce or not. Jane Birch, mother of the petitioner, gave corroborative evidence. She said that, for some years prior to 1918 her daughter had not lived with the respondent. His Honor granted a decree nisi with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. Mr Sinclair snid that, there was the question of the. custody of* the children. Mr Hay said that he had no objection to the father having reasonable access to the children. His Honor said that it would lake a considerable time if the respondent was to come from San Francisco to Roxlmrgh. The custody of the children would bo given to the petitioner in the meantime. The question of custody could oome up again in the usual way.

HISLOP v. 11l SLOP. Elizabeth Hislop v. George Gordon Hislop. Petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. Mr ITanlon appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner said that she married the respondent on August 5, 1914. There was one child of the marriage. After the marriage they lived at South Dunedin. Then her husband enlisted and went to the war within a week or two. He returned in May, 1919. He stayed with her for a few days and then said he was going to Martinborough to look for work, and that he would write. He left Dunedin about June 3, 1919, but he never wrote. She followed him to the North Island, and found him staying at a hotel in Martinborough. She did qot stay with him. He said that she was to go back to Wellington and that he would write. lie did not write. There was one child of the marriage. She had received no money from her husband. She worked ill Wellington for a time and then came back to Dunedin. She had lived with her mother and had kept herself ever since. Johanna Abernetby also gave evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. WINTER v. WINTER. Catherine Winter v. Charles Edward Winter. Petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. Mr Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner said that she was married in September, 1909. Sihe had lived :’n Dunedin with her husband. They lived happily together for a little time, but her husband had then given way to drink. She was in the catering business, and her husband began to make a nuisance of himself. She told him that he would have to do some work for himself. He left her house about April, 1916, and remained in town for a time. He then disappeared, lie had not corresponded with her, but had called at the house on one occasion and offered her some money. He wanted her to keep it and give it, back when he wanted it. She refused to take the money. He was sober on this occasion. lie had not communicated with her any way since. Janet Murray, sister of the petitioner, gave evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. GALBRAITH v. GALBRAITH. Leslie Neil Galbraith v. Cecilia Ann Galbraith. Petition for the restitution of conjugal rights. Mr Hanlon said that he had been acting for the respondent in this matter, and he had entered an appearance on her behalf He had, however, no instructions to take any further part in the proceedings. Mr Hav said that the respondent belonged to Milton. Her parents lived there, and she was an only daugnter. T he marriage had been somewhat exceptional, in that H was practically a runaway marriage. The parties were married on October 23, 1919, an the registrar’s office in Dunedin. Tt appeared that the petitioner had been keeping company with the respondent for some months before that. She had been going to Australia with her mother and father for a holiday. The petitioner and the respondent had met in Dunedin a day or two before tho boat was to sail and 't’r--went into the registrar's office and wC married three hours before the date of sailing. The parents of both parties had no knowledge of the marriage. The respondent returned to Dunedin in March, and the petitioner met her. They had lived together fo.r some months. The husband wanted her to stay in Dunedin, and her mother wanted her to stay in Milton. The petitioner had then gone out. to Milton to spend the week-ends. This had gone on till April, 1921, and at this stage the petitioner tried again to get, her to come to Dunedin to live with him. In March the petitioner was 23 and the respondent a few months over 21. The petitioner's father had been willing to provide a house for the couple. The respondent, however, said that she would not come to Dunedin, ami that she did not want to see petitioner any more. In May. 1921, the respondent had consulted Mr Hanlon about securing a separation order. He would hand in* the correspondence between himself and Mr Hanlon. The petitioner had said again that he wanted to take up house with his wife, but she would not come. She insisted on the separation. Leslie Ned Galbraith gave evidence corroborating Mr Hay’s statement. - His Honor said that he would make the usual order. CHARNLEY v. CHARNLEY. Elizabeth Oharnlev v. William James Charnley. Petition for divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion. rile petitioner sam tnai a,,. as murr’eri on June 7, 1913. There were no children of the marriage. They had lived in Dunedin for a couple of years and had then gone to live at Gilderthorpe, near Oamaru. She left the respondent because of his cruelty and his drunkenness. From the day she married him till she left him she had been hammered by him. The hammering had started on the day she was married. lie had struck her on that day. His Honor said that criminal proceedings were the only remedy for that sort of thing. Petitioner, continuing, said that she had tried to got on with her husband, but she could not. He was just the same whether he was drunk or not. In April, 1917. she had gone to a church meeting at All Saints. He had come round—he was drunk—and had told her to go home or he would bash her. She had gone straight home. -The respondent then made • her take off her clothes and had burnt them in the range, and what he could not burn he had cut, up with a razor. lie said that if she interfered with him while he was destroying her clothes he would cut her throat. She had. left, him shortly after that. She had not spoken to him since, and he had not tried to get her to go back to him. Elizabeth Piekworth, mother of the petitioner, gave corroborative evidence. The respondent was nearly always drunk. She had advised her daughter to leave him. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. SINCLAIR v. SINCLAIR, James Sinclair v. Esther Sinclair. Petition for divorce on the ground of desertion Mr Ilanlon appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner said that he was married in Glasgow on November 5, 1903. there were three children of the marriage. They had lived in Scotland for three years, and he had then oome to New Zealand. His wife came out a year later. They had lived in Maelaggan street and lvul got on

well together for a while. In 1910 his wife appeared to get dissatisfied, and wanted to go away. lie had not the money to enable her to go away, but had finally reluctantly agreed that she should take a place for a month. His wife had secured work at Omarama. That was in October, 1910. She had come back to Dunedin and had then gone away again and had never returned to him He had written to her several times and asked her to return, but she had replied declining to do so. He had had to look after the children. He had then had to board them, as he had secured work at sea. The eldest boy was now with his mother and the other two with him Robert Johnston Wintin also gave evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. DOUG AX v. DOUGAN. Norman David Dougan v. Ivy Mary Dougan. Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that respondent had failed to comply with an order of the court ter restitution of conjugal rights. Mr Hanlon appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner said that the order had been made by Mr Justice Hosking at, the Supreme Court in Dunedin on August 18 last. His wife had not come back. Her solicitor had stated that under no consideration whatever would she return to cohabit with him. His Honor: What was the cause of the trouble between you and your wife? r l he Petitioner: My wife left to visit her mother, and she did not return. There was no cause whatever, so far as I know. His Honor asked if they were of the same religion. The Petitioner: Yes. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at, they and of three months.