MARITAL INFELICITY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 20044, 6 September 1920, Page 8

MARITAL INFELICITY.

many divorce cases.. BUSY DAY AT SUPREME COURT. N. His Honor, Mr Justice Herdmnn, was kept busy at the Supreme Court to-day dealing with a lengthy list of undefended divorce cases. UPRITCHARD v. UPRITCHARD. The first case called was Margaret Elizabeth Upritchard (Mr Alpers) v. Hugh Andrew Upritchard, petitioner alleging desertion by the‘respondent. Petitioner gave evidence that she was niarried to the respondent in February, 1903. In July, 1915, bo deserted her, giving her no reason. She learned subsequently that he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. On his release he enlisted as a single, man and went to the war. Petitioner learned of this and obtained an allotment from the Defence Department. Since respondent’s return from, the war he had not lived with petitioner and had not supported her. Alter hearing corroborative evidence his Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. BEDFORD v. BEDFORD. Francis May Bedford (Mr K. M. Gresson) petitioned for a divorce from tier husband, Joseph Bedford, on the ground of respondent’s desertion for the last thirteen yearsFrancis May Bedford, the petitioner, stated that she married the respondent in August, 1904. in March, 1907, she , obtained a separation and maintenance 1 order against him. Respondent only ’ P«kT £1 under the order. There was a warrant out for his arrest, which had never been executed lo Ins Honor: Respondent used to dnnk heavily. He had not supported petitioner when she lived with hum ConoborativG evidence was given by Helena Rose Watson, sister of petitioner. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, petitioner to have the custody of the two children by tho marriage. ' FOSTER v. FOSTER., ' Emily Edith Foster (Mr Cunningham) petitioned ior a divorce from Frederick John Foster, on the ground of respondent’s desertion, Petitioner gave evidence that she was married to respondent in November, 1900. In April, 1915, respondent was dismissed from his employment for drunken ness. He then deserted petitioner, leaving her with three children. In’l9lG respondent loft with tho Expeditionary Forces. He deserted twico at the front, being posted as a. deserter. A warrant was out for his arrest, but he had disappeared. Respondent’s allotment money had been “cut off” on account of respondent’s debts while on leave in London. A decree nisi was granted to bo made absolute m three months. BOYD r. BOYD. and cruelty was the reason given by Hilda Elizabeth Boyd (Mr Alpers) ror a petition for divorce iron! James Boyd. Petitioner stated that her husband, a ship s officer, had been an habitual drunkard for over four years. When respon lent came ashore—they lived at Westport—he always got drunk before no went home and became violent. Respondent frequently thrashed petitioner, and on several occasions the police had o’ rr ca^ed ' n <to restrain respondent. Petitioner eventually got a separation order from her husband, the police being given instructions to protect her from being molested by him. Evidence was given by Constable Robert Bryan, police constable, ae to respondent’s drunken and' violent behaviour when the parties lived at New Brighton, in 1918. * Kathleen Green, Westport, gave corroborative evidence as to respondent’s drunkenness and cruelty. A decree nisi was granted', to.be made absolute m three montns. HAWKINS v. HAWKINS. Evelyn Lilian Gunn Hawkins (Mr Weston) petitioned for A divorce from Cecil Lyttelton Hawking, on the grounds of desertion. Evidence was given by petitioner as to respondent leaving her in 1916, when Iw went to Australia, ostensibly to enbst. He cud not enlist. Ho sent petitioner small sums-of money till i ebruary, 1917, when correspondence hini 5 and petitioner beard no more of In response to a question by his Honor, Mr Weston stated that respondent had been an officer in the Defence forces He got into trouble financially, and the authorities, to save him being disgraced, allowed him to go to Svd ney to enlist. He did not enlist, howl ever, and was now working for a motor firm m Sydney. • Elsio Lorraine Gunn Hawkins, sister evidinco? 10 “ er ’ gaVe C ° rml)orailve A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months, petitioner to have the custody of the children bv th« marriage. ‘ “ CLARKE v. CLARKE, Annie Elizabeth Clarke (Mr Ciminefiam) al eged desertion on tho part of her husband, Wilfred Joim Clarke in support of her petition for a . divorce 1 etitioner gave evidence, that she was married to respondent in 1907. Subs/ quently petitioner went to Queensland tor her health. On her rotn.-!!' < couJd lin'd no trace of h er husband 1 ’ Eventually sho found out that he was living m Auckland. Ho declined £ return to petitioner. I„ 1913 he asked petitioner to overlook the past and « turn to him. She did so ? rc ‘ dqiit again deserted her a few nShs latei. He was a drunkard. I n 39-11; respondent again asked petitioner i A decree nisi was granted fr, 1 absolute iu three month,.’ ROSS v. ROSS. Alleging desertion, Arthur M V dale Ross (Mr Alpers; peSnJ di from his wife, Edith Bo! ° Petitioner, in evidence, stated th-it after lus marriage to resnrwu. . . lived with her at Palmerafen d v* After the birth of his youngest VhiiJ’ now aged six. respondent dcnilV’’ tioner all marital rights \Vit n *■ ' at. the war from 1915 to 1918 during which period ho received no word Sf ever from his wife. On his return from he war petitioner returned to 5 home, but found (Fat ho was very urn welcome. Petitioner had maintained his wife and children In Son*/™! 1918, his wife deserted him 0 9 ” m;er , Loiters were produced by Annie Lawne Ross sister of the petitioner from respondent to-a mail nufi Bilhe. these letters showed that respondent was very fond of this man A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute m three months.- respondeat by consent being granted interim custody of Hie children by tho marriage! ASHTON v. ASHTON. Jane Ashton (Mr Cuningham) petitioned for a divorce from her husband 1 homas George . Ashton, alleging cruelty _ and desertion. & Petitioner’s evidence was to the effect that she married respondent in 1911. lived with petitioner’s parents, respondent making no effort to get a homo together. He was very violent and frequently ill-treated petitioner, who eventually hud to leave him on account of his behaviour. ■ .Corroborative evidence having been given his Honor made a decree “nisi, to be made absolute in three months, petitioner to have the custody of the one child by the marriage.

RIACH v. RTACH. Annio Mabel Riach (Mr Cuningham) petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Charles Riach,, on the ground of desertion. In evidence petitioner stated that she was married to respondent in 1902. There were four children by the marriage. In 1916 respondent deserted petitioner, and she had had to take Police Court proceedings to get any maintenance from him. A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months. M’LEAN v. M’LEAN.Effie Cora M’Lean (Mr Alpers), petiturned for a divorce from James Winchmoro M’Lean (Mr Donnelly), on the ground of adultery. Petitioner gave evidence as to respondent s adultery in July. 1919, at his station, at Highhank, with a girl named Esther Church. Corroborative evidence was given by Bert Minins, private inquiry agent. A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute m three months. BURNS v. BURNS. Desertion was alleged by Jane Emma Burns (Mr Dacre) against her husband, George Burns, from whom she sought a d vorce. In ber evidence, petitioner said that ene was married to respondent in 1909. two years later witness had to leave inm on account of his repulsive habits. , , oss s son turned respondent' out of the house, and petitioner had been unable to hud any trace of him until recently. L as t j u (y respondent instituted divorce proceedings against witness, but tue matter was dropped. As soon as witn?Sß l . ou , t respondent’s whereabouts she instituted the present proceedings. A decree nisi was granted, on the usual terms. fantham v. pantham" George Albert Fanthara (Mr Donnelly) alleged desertion on the part of lus wRo, Edith Miriam Ann Fantham. 1 etitioner stated that lie was marimi t0 i. t! , le rcs i’ ondont December, UIl, at Jvainpoj. j n 1912 respondent elt him to attend to her mother, who lived in Kaiapoi. Later on she sent petitioner a letter stating that, if he would live iu Kaiapoi, instead of on his" • m °ue and a half miles distant, she would again live with him, otherwise sne reL it her duty to remain with her parents. Witness had a meeting with tho respondent but she declined to return to him. Joseph Walter Fantham gave corroborative evidence. A 'decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. SERRA v. SERRA. ‘ Adultery on the part of her husband Gcone Domenica Berra, was alleged bv Ellen berra (Mr Goodman) m support of lier > petition. M Petitioner gave evidence to tho effect uiat sho was married to respondent in March 1911. There were live children by the marriage. In 1918 responc.ent Jolt petitioner, going to Wanganui ostensibly to work at bush-cutting Respondent failed to ' send petitioner money to maintain her. Eventually respondent wont to Taihape where petitioner found that he was living with .mother woman as “ Airs berra.” Goiroborativo evidence having been given, his Honor granted a decree nisi, to bq made absolute in three months, petitioner to have the custody of the children by the marriage. HUGHES v. HUGHES. Luke Prospect Hughes (Mr Lucas) alleged adultery on the ' part of his wile, Dora Irene Ellen" Hughes, William 11. Cowan being cited as tho corespondent. As the parties reside in Wellington us Honor asked what was the reason tor tlie case being brought to Christchurch. Air Lucas said the parties were married here. There was no rule against a petition being heard in another town. His Honor; Was it for the purpose ofpreventing publicity f Mr Lucas: Probably, your Honor. His Honor: Ihen that’s very wrono*. .. 1 ls ( ’ onor said he would deal with the case ns there was no rule against .it being heard here. b > Petitioner gave evidence as to having aeon the co-respondent come from His.wires room late at night Thev were living in a hotel at Wellington. Mr Alpers put in a deed in which the respondent admitted adultery with the co-respondent. A decree -nisi was granted, to bo made absolute ni. three months. ROBERTSON v. ROBERTSON. John Alacdouald Robertson (Air Raphael) alleged adultery on' tho part of his wile, Constance Lavinia Alary Robertson, in support of his petition tor a divorce from her. Leonard Cusworth was cited as the co-respondent, t etitioner gave evidence as to his !, l f n ma >-ned to respondent , n 1 , there were two children by the marriage. I etitioner gave evidence as to adultery between the respondent and co-respondent, at his homo* in Kilmore otreet. Evidence was given as to respondent and co-rcspondcnt having lived in Auckland as man and wife. 1 A decree nisi was granted, to bo inaclo absolute in three months. STUART’ v. STUART. Ellen Ann Stuart (Mr Thomas) petii° l I a v lvorco lrorn her husband, Jauub John V incent Donald Stuart, on tho giound or desertion. Petitioner stated that in 1915 her husband deserted her. ThcyAad never agreed on account of respondent’s nnth kmS If Jlta ‘ Petitioner had heard nothing of respondent since lus disE™ co and *«d had to maintain A decree nisi was granted to ho made absolute in three months. MORRIS v. MORRIS. LUF S M tion B M S r al l C r ged T by Ma,ld Eliza * teth Atoms (Mr M. J..Gresson), who S? wn,;™ hss: c 0 Jrom A!bert Petitioner’s evidence was to the effect in I'Kw W: r n^mo e e f t 0 the «»pondent Tn 1913 his conduct was so Vi/ -i,\ h Gt . lt ; oncr had to leave him. 1 1 i ler one occasion Blio Had to be carried out of her houso m an unconscious condition, owum to Ins treatment of her. Ho had“not maintained her. A decree nisi was granted, subject to the production of tho marriage cortifacato of the parties. Petitioner was gi anted tao custody of tho children by tho marriage. HUTCHISON v. HUTCHISON. 0“ ground of adultery Charles William Arthur Hutchison t Mr Huuter) petitioned for a divorce from his r< n- 1 bvo nn Hutchison. William Colhngs was cited as the co-respondent. Petitioner’s evidence was to the effect that ho married respondent in April, 1911. In 1913 lie separated from her under a deed of separation. Gilbert Ellison gave evidence as to respondent having lived with, the corespondent at Dunedin as man and wile. A decree nisi was granted, to b© made absolute in three months. O’BRIEN v. O’BRIEN. On tho grounds of her husband’s adultery Isabella Gray O’Brien- (Mr Thomas) petitioned for a divorce from Iw husband, Edward O’Brien. Evidence was given by tho petitioner to the effect that respondent had been misconducting himself with a Airs Crouch. Ho had admitted his misconduct, stating that he could not live without this other woman. They had been living together as man and wife for nearly two years. I A decree nisi was granted on the I usual terras. 1

-M’LACHLAN V. M’LACHLAN. Clara M Lnclilan (Mr Alpers) petitioncd for a divorce from lier husband, Cohn Campbell M’Lachlan, ou the ground of desertion. ~ cr hearing tlie evidence of petitioner and hcr v sister his Honor made a. decree nisi, to be made absolute in throe months. TAKEN IN CAMERA. Ethel Christina _ Field (Mr Alpers) petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Arnold James Field, on the ground of adultery. Tiio caso was heard ;n camera. A decree nisi was granted on the usual terms. BERRY v. BERRY. Fanny Berry (Mr M’Dopgall) petitioned for a divorce from Charles lliomas Berry, on the ground of desertion. Petitioner had been living apart from the respondent for the past seven years. Evidence was given that the respondent had been guilty of cruelty to the petitioner. In 1814 a maintenance order was issued by the Magistrate's Court against respondent, on the ground of persistent cruelty to, and failure to maintain, his wife, respondent being ordered to pay £1 ‘is 6d maintenance for his wife and child. Counsel contended that £1 2s 6d a week wds not sufficient maintenance, and diat petitioner was entitled to a decree. ' His Honor, after hearing evidence, granted a decree nisi, to bo made absolute in three months. A' COURT v. A’COURT. On the motion of Mr Donnelly, a decree nisi in Amelia Julia A’Court v. Arthur Efnest A‘Court, was made absolute. (Proceeding.)