UNHAPPY MARRIAGES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 257, 3 December 1914, Page 10

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES.

PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE.

SUPREME COURT CASES.

AN UNFAITHFUL HUSBAND.

The Supreme Court was to-day engaged in the hearing of divorce cases. His Honour Mr Justice Dcnuiston presided.

The first case called was that of Sarah Agnes Skevington (Mr Beswick) v. Samuel Richard Skevington. The petition was for dissolution of marriage, on the grounds of adultery. There iws no appearance of the respondent. -■

The parties were married on June 25/ 1890, and had resided at Waiau Downs and Waimate. They lived happily until 1901, when a domestic servant, Sarah Anne Lane, was engaged. From the day of her engagement there was trouble, and there was clear evidence of the respondent's intimacy with the servant. The petitioner spoke to her husband about the .matter, and he said that he "would stick to Anne for ever." She told him that either Lane or herself would have to go. Later, she found her husband and Lane in a compromising position. On November 25, 1901, on the suggestion of a neutral friend, she signed a deed of separation. The respondent afterwards went to Wanganui, residing at Fordell, and a little while ago Lane was married from his residence there.

lii reply to his Honour, the petitioner said that the delay in divorce proceedings lrad been due'to the fact that she thought that the signing of the deed of separation precluded her front applying for a divorce. Circumstances had since arisen which made her wish to have a divorce.

. His- Honour said that this explanation was quite satisfactory. After evidence in corroboration.had been called, his Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the highest scale. , <'CONSTRUCTIVE DESERTION.'' William Edward Ellis (Mr Hunter) sought dissolution of,his marriage with Ellen Ellis (Mr Sinclair), on the grounds of desertion. Mr Hunter said that the parties were married on May 28, 1882, and there were nine children, the youngest having been born on February 28, 1902. The respondent had refused to treat her husband as such since , May, 1901, wherefore he set up the plea of constructive desertion.

The petitioner, in the witness-box, stated that he had gone into business as baker, etc., at Hunterville, in 18915. He had there ■■ a* ■ an' ■ employee one Thomas Warner Bray, who drove his cart. One night in 1894 Bray took the respondent to a ball, and from that time on there was a difference in her attitude to him. From Hunterville they went to Hawera, Bray going with them. Thence they went to Masterton, and finally to Auckland. There lie worked for a baker at Mount Eden, and eventually went to Dargaville,. leaving his wife and family in Auckland. While lie was in the north his-family and Bray moved to Christchurch. This was in 1906. While they were in Hawera he had on one occasion gone into his wife's room, and she had ordered him out, threatening to call in Bray to eject him.

His Honour: That is rather an extraordinary position for a husband. Was Bray bigger than you?

A Voice, from the back of the Court: Not much. His Honour: What was that? Did I hear a remark?

The Owner of the Voice: I spoke, your honour. His Honour: Come forward. What is your name? The Interrupter (advancing): Munro.^ Mr Hunter: I may say, Sir, that' Munro and Bray are the same man. He has changed his name. His Honour: If I hear you open your mouth again in Court you will go out of it. You are doing yourself no good by this impertinent ..interruption. Resume your seat! Munro (as he was called in subsequent proceedings) went back to his seat, and the petitioner continued his evidence. He said that he followed his wife to Christcliurch, working his passage from Dargaville on a scow, and he found her living with tiie children and Munro, who was called uncle. This was in 1906. His wife denied him the rights of a husband, and once he heard her say to Munro: "I would chuck the old out if it'wasn't for the £2 a week I get from him." He then got mad and threw things about, and finally hq left and went to live by himself. Before this he had had to live in the house as an ordinary boarder, and had no rights as head of the house. Munro was the boss. Opening the case for the respondent, Mr Sinclair said that he would call evidence to show that the petitioner had the rights of a husbaud until October .15, 1909. The question was one of the credibility of the parties. His Honour said that there was \ a term of over five years from the date mentioned, which would be sufficient for the purposes of the. petition. Mr Sinclair pointed out that the petition had been filed in July last, well within the five years period. His Honour said that the evidence was clear that the parties had not lived together in the ordinary way as man and wife, and it seemed to him that the respondent was acting out of spite to her husband. If she went into the box and gave evidence on the lines suggested by counsel he would treat it with grave suspicion. The respondent, giving evidence on her own behalf, stated that she had refused to grant her husband rights after October 15, 1909, because she found that

he was at that time guilty of misconduct.

After the respondent had given further evidence, his honour said that he not believe her evidence that she had been a wife to the petitioner for years past. He therefore granted a decree nisi. Costs, £2O, were allowed against the petitioner.. (Proceeding.)