IN DIVORCE

Wairarapa Age, 13 March 1925, Page 3

IN DIVORCE

AT SUPREME COURT. MASTERTON CASES. Mr Justice Macgregor yesterday heard the following cases in the Supreme Court: — Linton v. Linton. John Francis Linton (Mr R. McKenzie) applied for a divorce from Ruby Florence Linton on the grounds of adultery. Michael Conza was joined as co-respondent. Mr R. K. uackson, who appeared for respondent and co-respondent, said that the respondent had instructed him to apply for maintenance and costs. She had no means with which to reply to the charge. She had five, children, and resided near Hawera. Petitioner had some years ago agreed to pay her £2 per week maintenance, but he had paid very little. The. adultery charge was absolutely denied. Counsel submitted that until some means was provided to enable the respondent to come to Court the case could not proceed. His Honour: But provision is made under the Act for respondent to apply for security of costs? Mr Jackson: But she has no means to come to the Court at all. His Honour: What have you to say, Mr McKenzie? Mr McKenzie said it was over two years since respondent left petitioner. She had since been living with the co-respondent, and one child had been horn out of wedlock, which respondent had registered as being illegitimate.

His Honour: What have you to say to that, Mr Jackson? The grounds on which the divorce is claimed is adultery, and she admits having had an illegitimate child.

Mr Jackson: But we deny that the child is the co-respondent’s. Mr McKenzie: We have a complete case, Your Honour, that respondent has been living with co-respondent at Pahiatua and later at Hawera. His Honour: Have you witnesses here who can prove the adultery? Mr McKenzie: Yes, Your Honour. They are here from Carterton. His Honour: It seems to me, if the facts are as placed before me by Mr McKenzie, that this lady would not be entitled to costs, even if she did apply. I think the case must go on. John Francis Edward Linton said he was married on April 17, 1912. His wife left him about Easter, 1923, and went to Feilding. She later came back to Pahiatua, where he went to see her. He last saw her about Christmas, 1923, when she met him at the door and told him she did not want to have anything to do with him. He asked to see the children, but she refused, saying that if she saw the children speaking to him she would knock their heads off. She said she had someone whom she thought more of, who could take care of her and the children. She was living at Pahiatua with Michael Conza, a horse trainer. He ascertained that hie wife gave birth at Hawera in 1924 to a child which was registered by the mother as illegitimate. Adam Laidlaw Linton, farmer, of West Taranaki, and father of-peti-tioner, said he just before Chirstmas went to the house at Hawera where respondent was living with Conzo. Witness said, "Well, Ruby, I am sorry for the position you have taken up, and I would like to have the grandchildren. I don’t like to see my grandchildren with you in the life you are living with another man.” He told her he could offer the children a home. She said, “No, I won't part with the children. I am doing the best I can for them.” There was a young baby in a basket on the verandah. His Honour: Is your wife alive?— Yes. Is your son able to look after the children and bring them up?—Yes. A decree nisi was granted the interim custody of five children to be given to petitioner. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale against the corespondent. Grayndler v. Grayndler. Elizabeth Miriam Grayndler petitioning for a divorce, said she married Charles Grayndler, workers’ union organiser, Of Wellington, in 1906 in Masterton. They lived in Wellington, Christchurch, Aohanga and Woodville, and had eight children. She had not lived with her husband for five years. Respondent, except for accumulated arrears under a separation order, had been allowing her £1 a week. In November last respondent occupied the same bedroom as a woman named Holmes in Wellington. Since November she had never cohabited with him.

Ina Millar, who conducted an apartment house at 7 Murphy street, Wellington, said Grayndler and a woman supposed to be his wife took a room and stayed at her house on November 29 and. 30, and left on. the Monday morning. A week prior to this they occupied the room for about 5 days. Witness did not know the woman was not Grayndler’s wife, but she was not Mrs Grayndler now in Court. On the 10th of this month she refused to let respondent have a room. A decree nisi was granted, petitioner t» have custody of the eight children. Costs were allowed on lowest scale against respondent. Watkins v. Watkins. Olive Watkins (Mr H. E. Hart) petitioned for a divorce from Clarence Edward Watkins. Mr Biss appeared for respondent* in connection with access to the children, and any claim for maintenance. Petitioner said she was married in 1912, and there were three children. A little while ago she learned her husband was living with another young lady, Eileen Bowles. Just before Christmas she went to the house,

knocked at the door, and then broke the bedroom window, flashed a torch, end saw Eileen Bowles and her husband in bed together. They were still living together. Sarah Eliza Budd corroborated, saying she saw Eileen Bowles scamper out of the bedroom.

A decree nisi was granted, with interim custody of the three children to the petitioner. Costs allowed against respondent on the lowest scale. To Mr Biss, His Honour said the question of access could be determined when the decree was moved absolute. Jenkins v. Jennins. I Jessie Philadelphia Jenkins (Mr Biss) petitioned for a divorce from George Edward Jenkins, jockey, on the grounds of desertion. , Petitioner said they were married in 1921. There was a child born before the marriage, which was legitimised on the day of their marriage. He went away on the day of thp wedding, and she returned to her father’s home. He wrote letters for about 5 months, during which period he sent her £B. She had written asking him to make a home, but ho had not replied. She lost trace of him till June last, when she .ascertained he was riding at the Napier races. She had not received any communication from him since December, 1921. Her father had provided her with a home. Percival Thomas Edwards, farmer, of Eketahuna, father of petitioner, said that after his daughter’s marriage the husband had no money to pay her train fare, and witness took his daughter home. She and the child had lived with him ever since. Jenkinds told him at Napier he never intended to come back, and the best thing his wife could do was to get a divorce. A decree nisi was granted, petitioner to have custody of the child; costs on the lowest scale. Davies v. Davies. Olive May Davies, of Carterton (Mr Burridge), was granted absolute nisi against Walter Davies, farm labourer.