DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3714, 19 May 1925, Page 51

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

LENGTHY LIST OF CASES. Mr Justice Him presided over a lengthy sitting of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, when he heard a large number of petitions in divorce. HARVEY v. HARVEY. Sidney Harvey petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage to Jessie Harvey on the ground of misconduct, Charles Allen being joined as co-respondent.' Mr Irwin, who appeared for the petitioner, aid that the respondent did not oppose the petition, but sought the custody of the child. The parties were married on October 11, 1911, and there was one child of the marriage. In July; 1923, co-respondent and respondent were at Mosgiel, arid it was understood that they stayed there as man and wife for one night. The husband went out and found them both there, and he took his wile back to Dunedin Sho afterwards lett petitioner and went to Avoca, where respondent was employed as a coal miner. Petitioner understood that she had broken off with the corespondent, but found otherwise, and started to get back the child. Respondent ami co-respondent were living at Avoca. Tie got the child, and brought it to Dunedin, and espondent and co-respondent went to Wellington. Evidence was given by petitioner, Frank Cheyne, and Evelyn May Harvey. A decree nisi was granted with leave to move it absolute in three months. Costs were awarded against the respondent on tho lowest scnle. RICHARDSON v. RICHARDSON. James Richardson petitioned for a dissolution of marriage with Hilda Richardson on the ground of a three years’ separation. Mr Hanlon said an appearance had been entered by Mr Irwin.

Mr Irwin said it was a question of alimony. James Richardson, petitioner, stated in evidence that he was a fireman. He and respondent were married on June 15, 1918, ai Runford, Essex. He had been a member of the Expeditionary Forces. He was “convalescing” at. the time the marriage took place. They resided for a while in England, and after the armistice came out to New Zealand. There was one child born of the marriage. His wife wanted to go back to England, and witness tried to persuade her to remain where she was. She tried to sell rl« furniture in order to get money to go a-vay. They finally agreed to separate. Evidence was aJso given by William Ross and Harry William Kirkwood. A decree nisi was granted with leave to move it absolute in three months. HOFFMAN v. HOFFMAN. Elizabeth Hoffman petitioned foi a dissolution of her marriage with George Hoffman on the ground of a three years’ separation. Mr Irwin, who represented the petitioner, said the parties were married on July 28, 1904, and lived in Dunedin. Sawyers’ Bay, and other places, and finally at Balclutha. There were two children of the marriage. An order for maintenance and guardianship had been made by Mr Ratholomew. Respondent had very seldom paid under "the order, and a large sum was owing. Further evidence was by H. W. Kirkwood and Horace Brent. Mr Bremner mentioned that he appeared for respondent in regard to the children. His Honor said he would not make an order as to access to the children. When the decree was moved absolute that might be heard. A decree nisi would be granted, with leave to make it absolute after three months. Custody of the younger child was granted to petitioner. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale. M'INTOSH v. M'INTOSII. Thomas M'lntosh petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage to Catherine M‘lntosh on the ground 'of a three years’ separation. Mr Hay, who appeared for petitioner, said the parties were married in 1921. There was a great disparity in their ages, the petitioner being 76 and the respondent 43. Their married happiness did not continue long. Not long after the marriage there was cruelty and unkindness, and petitioner had had to consult a doctor. He went to Caversham and lived there. Respondent sued for maintenance, and temporary arrangements were come to, and a separation order entered into. Petitioner said the respondent a widow when he married her. Elizabeth Orr gave addition'll evidence. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to move it absolute in three months. WILLIAMS v WILLIAMS. Sidney James Williams petitioned for a divorce from Vera Blanche Olga Williams, on the ground of misconduct, John Fraser being joined as co-respondent. Petitioner said they were married in 1920, and thev lived together till last January. From something he said to her his wife replied that she would leave, and she did so, but came back. He received a letter from her later, and he employed a private detective, who found his wife with co-respondent in a bedroom under very compromising circumstances. John Cameron Craig, private detective, also gave evidence. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it ‘absolute dn three months, custody of child to petitioner, co-respondent to pay costs on the lowest scale, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar. FLINT v. FLINT. Alfred Flint sought- a dissolution of his marriage with Rita Maisie Lily Flint on the ground of desertion. Mr Hanlon appeared for petitioner. Petitioner stated that he was a carpenter. They were married in 1919 in England, while he was recovering from war injuries. He received his discharge, and lived in England for some little time. There was one child born. He and his wife then came out to New’ Zealand and settled in Dunedin. Jlis wife became very dissatisfied, and went out to dances, to which he objected. He went to Chatto Creek to work. His wife wrote that she was going to Christchurch to work there. He had sent her money regularly. He came to Dunedin and heard something about another man. Later he saw her in the street with the otl.ar man. James Douglas Flint also gave evidence. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to move it absolute in three months, petitioner to have the custody of the child. M‘IVOR v. MTVOR. Margaret Beatrice MTvor petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Finlay MTvor, on the ground of a three years’ separation. Mr Hanlon appeared for petitioner. Petitioner said she and respondent were married on October 15, 1917, and after the marriage her husband went into camp. A child was born in 1918. Her husband returned after the armistice and then drank to excess. Ho provided no maintenance. Proceedings were taken to get a separation order, and one w r as granted. She had kept herself and her child by her osvn industry. The arrears were considerable. Evidence was also given by Joan Haig and others. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after three months, custody of the child to petitioner; costs pn the lowest scale. TUSTAIN v. TUSTAIN. Margaret Tustain petitioned for a divorce from Edgar Tustain on the grounds of a three-years’ separation. Mr Hay, for petitioner, said the parties were married in January, 1915, and there was one child, now nine years old. There was some desire for access to the child, which had been agroed to. Tho cause of the separation was that tho two could not agree. The date of the agreement to separate was September 29, 1921. Evidence was given by petitioner and Rebecca Chootjue. A decree nisi was granted, to bo moved absolute in three months. An interim ordor was made for the custody of the child to petitioner. HARRISON v. HARRISON. Margaret Harrison petitioned for a divorce from her husband on the grounds of doserkion. Mr Irwin (for petitioner) statod that tho parties were married in 1919 and respondent soon afterwards ordered his wife to get out of the house. Since then sho had maintained herself. She had given birth to one child. The husband had visited her. and had paid the expenses to the matron of the home. He said ho had ordered his

wife out because he suspected her, and he did not think she would take him at his word. However, she did. Evidence was also given by Ensign Coombs and Alma Baker. A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months. Costs were allowed against the respondent on the lowest scale. SMITH v. SMITH. Lucy Elizabeth Smith petitioned for u dissolution of marriage with Elam Smith, on the ground of a three years’ separation. Mr Irwin, representing petitioner, said the parties were married on August 24, 1908, and there were five children. They had not got on very well together, and had finally agreed to separate, the five children being placed in a home where thev remained for some time. Petitioner had since worked to maintain the children, and had lived entirely apart from the respondent. Petitioner and Kathleen Hughes gave evidence A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute in three months. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale. HARRHY v. HARRHY. Eliza Jane Harrhy petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Herbert Wm, Harrhy, on the ground of misconduct Mr Smith, who appeared for petitioner, said he had received a letter from petitioner from Wellington saying that she did not desire to go oh with the petition. The husband had asked her'to forgive him for the sake of the child. He (counsel) had therefore no alternative but to withdraw the petition. Withdrawn accordingly. DECREES MADE ABSOLUTE. The following decrees nisi were made absolute :—Catherine Elizabeth Keenan v. Oliver John Keenan; Rachael Elizabeth Owen v. Alexander Robert Owen; William Crane.field v. Violet Isabella Cranefield, Annie B Dixon v. Richard W. Dixon.