SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 864, 16 November 1916, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. HEARING OF UNDEFENDED CASES. His Honour Mr Justice Sim sat in divorce, in the Supreme Court yesterday, hearing a number of undefended cases. I-lOARE V. HOARE.

Florence Hoare (Mr Cuningham) sought a dissolution of her mavriage with her husband Philip Hoare, on the ground of desertion. The petitioner said that she was married at Queenstown in 1896. There was one child of the marriage. They came to Christchurch in 1898. Their home was broken up in 1900. He neglected her a great deal: was addicted to card playing, and to spiritualism. In 19(17 she left him, he agreeing to pay her £IOO per year, which he paid until 1908. Her husband used to come to see the boy sometimes. In June, 1908, he went to Sydney, and never came back. She bad not heard from him after December, 1908. She had maintained herself in the intervening period. Rachael Olds, school teacher, said she had known Mrs Hoare and her husband since 1904. In June, 1907, the petitioner came to stay at her place, the respondent coming to see her occasionally. Since 1908 Mrs Hoare had maintained herself.

A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, with costs against "respondent. HODGES V. HODGES. Ethel Fanny Hodges (Mr Cuningham) sought a dissolution of her marriage with Harry Hodges, on the ground of drunkenness and cruelty. The petitioner said that she was married in December, 1897. Her husband was a wicker-furniture maker by occupation. There were three children by the marriage, two of whom were living. Her husband had been drinking for over 10 years, but had been cruel only since the last child was born in 1907. When her child was six weeks old, he came home, and ordered her out of bed. She asked him to leave her alone as she was not well; he then pulled her out of bed, ran her out to the kitchen, and threw a basin of cold water over her. On another occasion he ordered her out of bed at 2 o'clock in the morning. He had beaten her, had left the marks of his fingers on her throat, and on several occasions she had been given a black eye. Often at night when he came home drunk she would have to take the children out in their nightgowns, and they would sleep in neighbours' washhouses. She had been separated from him twice, and on one occasion had taken a prohibition order out against him. They | parted finally about two years ago, land all that she had had from him in the meantime was £ls. His Honour closely cross-examin-ed witness regarding the drinking habits of her husband, saying that he did not believe that a man could drink all day and build up a business.

The witness said that because of his drinking habits her husband had lost his business and two houses. Mr W. A. D. Banks gave evidence as to the conviction of respondent at the Magistrate's Court, on charges of drunkenness and refusing to quit licensed premises. Mrs Elizabeth Ashcroft, living at 150 Esplanade, New Brighton, said that petitioner was her sister. She was intimately he* sister's married life, because/she visited her frequently and had" seen the effects of the ill-treatment inflicted on her by her husband. She had frequently seen the husband come home drunk, and had seen marks left on her sister's throat. She had also seen the furniture broken. Her sister's life had been most*unhappy. Hodges was now working for wages. His Honour said that he would like to have some independent evidence: the fact that the man was now able to earn his living and keep his job for live months did not square with the picture painted by the wife. The case was adjourned till Saturday.

A WIFE'S HOLIDAY. When the Court resumed this morning the case John William Smith (Mr Upham) v. Kate Lillian Smith, was heard. The petitioner applied for the dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of desertion. Elisha Brown, a pressor at Kaiapoi, said that he had known Mrs Smith for many years. Her maiden name was Kate Lillian Burley. Mrs Smith disappeared about eight years ago. There was no question of illtreatment on the part of the husband. Mrs Smith was, at the time of her disappearance, working at the factory. The petitioner said that he married the respondent on March 15, 1890. There were no children of the marriage. Both he and his wife continued working at the factory after the marriage. They lived happily together until 1908, when his wife went for a holiday to Wellington. He had never seen or heard from her since. She was now in Victoria. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute in three months.