SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9015, 23 August 1907, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN DIVORCE. Friday, August 23. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) His Honor Mr Justice Chapman held a sitting in Divorce at the Supreme Court this morning. HARDIE t. HARDIE. Thomas Hardie (Mr Leathern) petitioned for the dissolution of his marriage with liis wife, on the grounds of misconduct. The petitioner said that he had been married on January 24, 1906, and had lived with his wife for some time. In June his wife had gone away with a man named Jarvis, who had been lodging with them. Evidence was given that the divorce papers had. been served on the resixmdI ent and co-respondent. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lower scale as against the I co-respondent. PREECE t. PREECE. Annie Preece (Mr Russell) applied for an order directing her husband, j Charles Henry Preece, to restore cocnI jugal rights. There was no appear--1 ance of the respondent. Evidence was | given that the parties had been mar- [ ried in 1900, and had had no children. In 1901 they had separated, owing to the husband's cruelty, drunkenness and ill-treatment. He did not assist towards her maintenace, and subsequently an order of maintenance h-ad been made against him. Since their separation the petitioner had endeavoured to bring about a restoration of their proper relations, but the respondent had refused to have any communication, and no word could be got out of him. His Honor made an order. RICHARDS v. RICHARDS. Simon Richards (Mr Fraser) petitioned for the dissolution of his. marriage j with Jane Maria Richards. .__, ! It was shown that the parties had I been married on February 14, 1900, and had lived together for about six years. About fourteen months ago the respondent had withdrawn from cohabitation and set up a boarding-house in the city. Since then she had refused to return to the petitioner, or have any communication with him. At the time of the marriage the petitioner had been a widower, with eight children, and the respondent a widow, with six children. A great deal of trouble had ensued on account of the amalgamation of the two families. On May 31, 1907, a decree was made for the- restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent had failed to comply with the terms of the decree, and the petitioner had accordingly tiled a petition for divorce. A. decree- nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. JOHNSTON v. JOHNSTON. Agnes Jobneton (Mr Lane) petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with William Johnston on the grounds of misconduct. There was no appearance of the respondent. Evidence was given that the parties had been married on July 23, 1878, at Waimate, there being eight children of the marriage. The respondent, who had been an hoteikeeper in several parts of Canter bin y, had in 1900 been licensee of the Railway Hotel. He had 6oid out in January, 1901, and by mutual consent the petitioner had taken a cottage in Christchurch for heiiself -and the family. The respondent had never lived with her since, and in May, 1901, an order of maintenance had I been made against him under the DestiI tute Persons Act, but the order had been i cancelled by agreement subsequently, the respondent transferring to the petitioner a small hotel near Oamaru, subI ject to a mortgage upon it. The hotel had lost its license, and the petitioner j had obtained nothing from it. She had subsequently learned of her husband's misconduct. . Evidence of misconduct having been given, his Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lowest scale. POWERS v. POWERS. Mary Jane Powers (Mr Fraser) applied for an order of dissolution of marriage with her husband, William Powers, on the ground that the respondent had misbehaved with a child, for which he was now serving sentence of Jive years' imprisonment, served in Juuo, 1905. The respondent was present in custody. His Honor said that the rules of th^ Court in divorce cases prescribed that unless a man entered an appearance the case went on as if he were absent. He (his Honor) had taken care that the respondent should, be permitted to attend, but haying entered no appearance the rules did not allow him to take any part in the proceedings. He might, however, suggest any questions that he wished to be asked of the witnesses. In reply ta Mr Fraser, who said that he had been unable to procure all the witnesses of the criminal trial, his Honor said that Mr Fraser had better call what evidence he had. He was proving misconduct in the usual way, and although it was absurd, the evidenco given in fhe criminal trial and the decree were not admissible by affidEvidence was given by the mother of the child and by a medical witness. His jiionoT said that he thought the cafte was defective. Of course, he knew what the evidence in the criminal trial had been. If the evidence of the father of the child had been available it would probably have been sufficient, and without it the child's would have been sufficient. But the evidence given did not prove- anything, even supposing that the girl's statement to the mother was admitted, more ih&n that an assault had been committed. The evidence had not connected the assault with the medical evidence. He thought it would be better to havo the girl summoned, meanwhile he would adjourn the case, and it would be taken again as soon as Mr Fraeer gave notice <:hat another witness was ready. MAYER v. MAYER. The case of Mayer v. Mayer was adjourned until September 4. WILSON v. WILSON. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, in the case of Hester Jane Wilson (Mr Wright) v. Robert W 7 ilson, an application for dissolution of marriage, on tine ground of desertion. liiere was no appearance of the respondent. The custody of tlio child wa.s granted, and costs were allowed on the lowe&t scale.