DIVORCE CASES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2047, 6 September 1920, Page 8

DIVORCE CASES.

UNDEFENDED PETITIONS. i A number of undefended divorce petitions wore heard at the Supremo Court this morning by his Honour Mr Justice Hcrdman. Margaret Elizabeth Upritchard • (Mr 0. T. J. Alpers) petitioned for a divorco from Hugh Andrew Upritchard on the ground of desertion. The petitioner staled that sho was married in February, 1903. In July, 1915, her husband loft her without giving any reason, and sho learned that he was sentenced subsequently to a term of imprisonment. On his release he enlisted as a single man and went to the War. Sho discovered this, and, for 38 months, she obtained an allotment from his pay, as tho result of an application to the Defence Department. On his return he did not live with her or support her. His Honour granted a decree nisi. HUSBAND DISAPPEARS. Francos May Bedford (Mr K. M. Grcsson) sought a divorco from Joseph Bedford on the ground of desertion. Mrs Bedford stated that she married the respondent in 1904. In 1907 she had to leave him, with her two children, because ho struck and otherwiso illtreated her. She obtained a maintenance order against him. On this he paid £l, and then he disappeared. So far as sho knew, he had never since been located.

A deerec nisi was granted. A DRUNKEN SEAFARER

Drunkenness and cruelty wero the grounds on which Hilda Elizabeth Boyd (Mr O. T. J. Alpers) petitioned for a divorce from James Boyd. Mrs Boyd stated that her husband, who was mate of a coastal steamer, used to come home drunk when his vessel arrived at Wcstport, where he had made a home for her. Ho was violent in drink, and used to beat her. This continued through nearly all their married life. He was called into camp, and sho went to New Brighton, where she set up a little shop. He was turned out ofcanvp,' and ho camo to livo with her. His drinking continued, and she had to obtain a separation from him in 1919. Constable R. C. Bryan, of New Brighton, said that he was called in several times to protect Mrs Boyd from the drunken violence of her husband. A decree nisi was granted. MISSING SINCE 1916. Desertion was alleged by Evelyn Lilian Hawkins (Mr G. T. AVeston) in her petition against Cecil Lyttelton Hawkins. She stated that her husband left her in 1916, and went to Sydney to enlist. Ho did not enlist, and then promised to make a home for her. Ho sent her about £37 up to February, 1917, ami since then he had not replied to her letters. His Honour granted a decree nisi. TWICE DESERTED. Annie Elizabeth Clarke (Mr J: R. Cuniugham) stated, in' support of her petition against Wilfrid John Clarke, that, after a separation about 1911, when she went to Australia for health reasons, her husband had lived with her only for two short periods, during both of which ho drank heavily. lie gave no reason for leaving. Since 1916 she had supported herself entirely by her own efforts. A decree nisi was granted. A COOL RECEPTION. Arthur Martindale Ross (Mr O. T. J. Alpers) sought the dissolution of his marriage with Edith Ross. Mr F. S. Wilding appeared for the respondent, with jrespect to tho question of custody of the children. Tho petitioner stated that ho was married in 1908. After the birth of their youngest child, in 1914, his wife refused to treat him as a husband. This attitudo she maintained till ho enlisted in 1915. During his three years at the War he received no letters from her. When he came home she treated him coldly, and finally went away and left him. He produced somo loveletters in her handwriting, addressed to one '"'Billy." One of these was dated 1917.

A sister of the, petitioner stated that, she had intercepted the letters addressed to "Billy," whose full name she knew, and handed them to her brother. A decree nisi was granted, and it was agreed that the respondent should have the interim custody of the children. DESEBTED FROM THE ARMY. Emily Edith Foster (Mr J. R. Cuningiiam) was successful in her petition for the dissolution of her marriage with Frederick John Foster. She stated that in 1915 her husband lost his position through drunkenness, and, leaving her in Wellington, ho went to New Plymouth. He failed to support her, and afterwards enlisted. She learned afterwards that he had deserted at the Front, and she was informed that he was still posted as a deserter. Her allotment was out off in consequence, and she received no gratuity. A decree nisi was granted. SUPPORTED HERSELF.

Jane Ashton (Mr J. R. Cuningham), in her application for a divorce from Thomas George Ashton, said that, after her marriage, the respondent failed to make a homo for her, but was content to live in her mother's house. Ho took to drink, struck her, and threatened to shoot her. She obtained a separation order against him, with custody of her child, and since then, sho had been supporting herself. Whatever sums she received from him under the order wore obtained with the greatest difficulty. The order amounted only to 17/6 n week, which was not enough to support her and the child. A decree nisi was granted. WORKED IN A FACTORY. Maud Elizabeth Morris (Mr M. ,T. Gresson), in applying for a divorco from Albert W. 11. Morris, said that in 1913, 10 years after her marriage, she left her husband on account of his violence and general ill-treatment. Since then he had paid 17/6 a w*eek towards the support of three children. She had supported herself by working in a factory. A decree nisi was made. MISCONDUCT PROVED. A divorco on the ground of her husband's misconduct was asked for by Airs Ellen Serra (Mr 11. S. .). Goodman). The respondent was Lconidos Domeuico Serra. The petitioner said that she married the respondent in 1911 and had five children. In March, 1918, her husband left her to find work, and did not return. She obtained n maintenance order against, him, and afterwards went to Taihapo, whore sin- had heard ho was living. Then' she found him living with another women, who passed us Mrs Serra. His Honor granted a decree nisi. WRITTEN' COMMISSION. Misconduct was alleged by Mrs Nellie Elizabeth GriMths i.Mr O.'x, Thomas) against Leslie Llewellyn Griflitl s. The petitioner said that -he and her husband lived at Auckland till last year, when they camo to Christehureh. Some li later her husband admitted to her thai he had

"got a girl into trouble." Af tor wards he and a young woman mado a writ ton admission of misconduct in her presence in a solicitor's office.

His Honour granted a decree nisi AFTER THE TARTY.

The case of Effiie Cora McLean (Mr O. T. J. Alpers and Mr R. Twyneham) v. dames Winchmore McLean, which had been previously before the Court as a defended suit, was proceeded with upon (in amended petition. The petitioner stated that she had causo to suspect her husband's relations with a servant in their house. In July last, in company with some friends and an inquiry agent, she went to her husband's station at Methven and watched the house, where a party was in progress. When the party was over and tho lights went out, sho and the inquiry agent broke a bedroom window and discovered the respondent and tho girl in tho room together. A decree nisi was granted. Mr A. T. Donnelly watched tho case on behalf of tho respondent. NOT THEIR HOME TOWN. In the case of Luke Prospect Hughes (Mr A. Lucas) v. Dora Irene Ellen Hughes and William H. Cowan, his Honour remarked on the fact that none of the parties was a resident of Christchurch, ami asked why the suit was brought here. Mr Lucas: The marriage took placo in Christchurch. Ilia Honour: Were tho proceedings taken here for the purpose of avoiding publicity? Mr Lucas: Possibly that may bo so, sir. His Honour: Well! It's very wrong. Mr Lucas: The parties have no settled home. They have a right to bring the petition anywhere. His Honour: That is so! Still, it's very extraordinary! Go on with the evidence. The petitioner stated that during a period of about three mouths he did not have access to his wife. At the end of that time he found her with the corespondent under suspicious circumstances. Some months afterwards a child was born to her. A deed signed by the parties was put in, the respondent and co-respondent admitting misconduct, though the corespondent did not admit paternity of tho child. ' A decree nisi was granted. WIDOW'S UNLUCKY CHOICE. Jane Emma Burns (Mr T. S. Daere) urged desertion against George Burns. Sho stated that she married him in 1909, she being then a widow with a grown-up family. He turned out to be a degenerate, and his habits were s,ueh that, in 1911, her son turned him out of the house. Ho had never since done anything to support her. Evidence showing that the parties had not lived together since 1911 was given, and his Honour granted.a decree. CASES OF DESERTIOX. George A. Fontham (Mr A. T. Donnelly) petitioned for a divorco from Miriam Anne Fantham, on the ground of desertion. Counsel stated that, thrco years ago, tho respondent filed a petition to havo tho marriage nullified. Tho petitioner filed an answer, and nothing further was done in tho matter. This petition was read by his Honour. Tho petitioner in the present case stated that the allogations contained in the document read were untrue. Ho was married, he said, in 1911, and 12 months later his wife went to her parents' houso to nurse ono of them, and had since persistently refused to return to him.—A decree nisi was made. A decree on tho ground of desertion was granted to Ellen Anne Stuart (Mr C. S. Thomas) against James St. John Vincent Donald Stuart. Petitioner stated that, in September, 1915, her husband left her and, until a few months ago, she did not know where he was.

Annie Mabel Tiiach (Mr .T. R. Cuninghani) was successful in her petitioji against Charles Biach, on the ground of desertion. Mrs Riacli slated that, in 191G, she found out that her husband was "carrying on" with other women. Soon afterwards, ho lost his employment, and tlio home was sold up. He left her and had never since come back. She had made several attempts to obtain money from him, but he put every possiblo difficulty in the way, and it was necessary to have him arrested. She had virtually to bring up her four children li3 r her own exertions. His Honour granted a decree nisi. IN FEAE OF THE POLICE. Clara MeLachlan (Mr O. T. J. Alpers) applied for a divorce from Colin Campbell MeLachlan, on the ground of desertion. She stated that in December, 1911, her husband left her. Fifteen months later he wrote, asking her to join him in Sydney. She did so, but, after a week, he departed, saying that tho police were after him. She came back to New Zealand, and, since then, all her effort* to find him had beeu useless. A decree nisi was granted. CASE HEARD IN CAMERA. One case, Ethel Christina Field (Mr 0. T. J. Alpers) v. Arnold James Field, a petition on tho ground of misconduct, was heard in camera. His Honour made a decree nisi. HOME SOLD UP. Misconduct was alleged by John McDonald Robertson (Mr 11. J. Raphael) in his petition against Constnnce Laviuia Mary Ross and Leonard Cusworth. Tha I petitioner stated that he was married in 1898, and had two children. About the beginning of 1916, ho came homo about 2 a.m. and met his wife, in her nightattire, coming out of the room of tho corespondent, who was a guest in the house. Ho accused them of misconduct, but they did not admit it. Soon afterwards ho had a nervous breakdown, and, when he recovered, after a long illness, ho found that they had sold up his home and gone to Auckland. A private dcteetivo gave evidence that he served the papers upon the respondent and co-respondent at Auckland, where they were living as man and wife. A decree nisi was granted. SEQUEL TO EARLIER CASE. A decree nisi already made in another case, Crouch v. Crouch, was the basis of a petition brought by Isabella Gray O'Brien (Mr C. S. Thomas) against Edward O'Brien. Mrs O'Brien stated that she had cause to suspect her husband's relations with Mrs Crouch, and ultimately the tatter's husband obtained a decree nisi, her husband figuring in the case as co-respondent. She knew that the parties had been living as man and wife for more than a year. A decree nisi was granted. TWO YEARS TOGETHER. Charles William Arthur Hutchison (Mr W. .!. Hunter) sought a divorce from Olive Anne Hutchison. William Ceilings was cited as co respondent. The petitioner said that he married the respondent in 1911. and entered into a deed of separation two years later. He had not spoken to her since. There were in children of the marriage. The evidence of another witness was to the effect that the respondent and co respondent lived together at Duiicdin in T. > I:'.. and that a child was horn to them. His llonoin made a decree. I XSI rFit 1 K.VL MA I XT FN ANt.'R. In the suit of I'anuv Bern (Mr 11. K. McDougall) v. Charles Thomas Berry, counsel for tho petitioner stated that

the parties had boon living apart, under a separation order, since •January, 1014. The order provided that, tlio husband should pay 22/0 a week to his wife, and this ho had done regularly, except on two occasions, when summonses for arrears were issued. Counsel submitted that tho petitioner was entitled to a divorco on tho ground of desertion, if it could bo shown that tho respondent did not pay her sufficient to maintain her. A sum of --/{') a week, he said, was obviously llot enough to support her and her child. He called evidence to show that, for a time, the petitioner supported herself by keeping a toa-room at Sumner. The evidence of the petitioner, taken on commission at Auckland, was to the effect that she loft her husband on ne-| count of his eruelt v to her. A decree nisi was granted, and the ' petitioner was given interihi ruMo.lv of] her child. -Mr A. T. Ttounelly appeared for the respondent respecting (lie lastnamed mailer. DKCRKK ABSOLUTE. A decree absolute was granted in ilie ! case Amelia Julia A 'Court IMr A. T. | Domicile) v. Arthur Krncst AX ourl. !