DIVORCE CASES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 12 March 1925, Page 5

DIVORCE CASES.

_ IN THE SUPREME COURT. SEVERAL KNOTS UNTIED.

A In Supreme Court at Alasterton IT -. this morning before His Honour Mr -Justice MacGregor, the following divorce cases were heard: — LINTON v. LINTON. John Francis Linton (Mr R. Alelicnzie) applied for a divorce from Rubv Florence Linton on the grounds -of adultery. Michael Conza. was joined -as co-respondent. Mr K. K. Jackson .■appeared for the respondent and co-re-spondent. Mr .Jackson said that the respondent had instructed him to apply for .maintenance and costs. Ihe respondent had no means with which to come -.to the Court to reply to the charge. ;She had live children, and resided near Hawera. The petitioner had some years mgo agreed to pay respondent £2 pci week maintenance, but lie had paid very little. The adultery charge in the was absolutely denied. Counsubmitted 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 milder the Act for respondent to applv .for security of costs? Mr Jackson: But she has no means jto 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, .-and she had since been living with the Since she left petitioner, one child had been born out of wedilock, 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 are 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 «ease, Your Honour, that respondent has been living with co-respondent at I’aAAfua and later at Hawera. Honour: Have you witnesses hhere 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. 1 think the case must go on. You can watch the ease on behalf of both parties, Mr Jackson. John Francis Edward Linton said he -swas married on 17th April, 1912. JJis wife left him about Easter, 19211, and went to Feikling. She later came back to Pahiatua, where he -went to sec her. He last saw her about Christmas, 1923. &be had tea rooms. He went to the shop. She met him at the door and ;&old him she did not want to have anything to do with him. He asked to see the children, but she refused, saying jfiiat 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. He then went .-away. She was living at Pahiatua with Michael Conza, a horse trainer. He .ascertained that his wife gave birth j&fu child at Hawera in 1924. The was registered by the mother as illegitimate. Adam Laidlnw Linton, farmer, of West Taranaki, and father of petitioner, said he remembered the son’s wife leaving him in the autumn of 1923. Witness last saw Mrs Linton near Hawera just before Christinas, 1924. He went to the house where she was living with Conza. Witness said, “Well Ruby, lam sorry for the position you have .taken up, and 1 would like to have the .grandchildren. 1 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, 1 won’t part with the ■children. 1 am doing the best 1 can

for them.” There was a young baby ia a basket on the verandah which Jooked a few months old. His son liv,ed with him. He would provide a home i'or the children. His Honour: Is your wife alive? Witness: Yes. Is your son able to look after the ■children and bring them up? —Yes. A decree nisi was granted, to be -vygbed absolute after the expiration of months. The interim custody of Jive children to be given to petitioner. ■Costs were allowed on the lowest scale .against the co-respondent. GRAYNDLER v. GRAYNDLER. Elizabeth Miriam Graynclier petitioned for a divorce from Charles Gray udder. Petitioner said she was the wife of •Charles Grayndler, workers' union organiser, of Wellington. She was married in 1900 in-Masterton by the Registrar. They lived in Wellington, Christchurch, Aohanga and Woodville. They .had eight children. She had not lived with her husband for five years. The -Magistrate at Wellington had made a l order. Respondent, except jfor accumulated arrears, had been allowing her £1 a week. Witness had .learned that in November last respondent occupied the same bedroom as a women namde Holmes at 7 Murphy street, Weiflingtoij. ■. Since November last she had never co-habited with re.spoiulent. Ina Millar said she conducted an ap.vrrt merit house at 7 Murphy street, Wellington. Grayndler and a woman -"snynosed to be his wife took a room niflKtaycd at her house. They oeccupiedvhe room on 29th and doth November (after the Feilding races), and left on the Monday morning. A week prior to this Grayndler and the woman •occupied the room for about b days. At that time witness did not know the woman was not Grayndler’s wife. The •woman was not Mrs Grayndler, now in- • Court. On the 10th of this month respondent called again, but witness refused to let him have a room. A decree nisi was granted, to be -moved absolute after the expiration of •three months. Petitioner to have cu.sftody of tihe eight children. Costs allowed on lowest scale against respond■vEJlt. WATKINS v. WATKINS. Olive Watkins petitioned for a div<'orce from Clarence Edward Watkins. appeared for petitioner. Mr liSLss said lie appeared for respondent in connection with gaining access to the jdjuldren, and any claim that might ■ be^Jrae for maintenance. Petitioner said s>he was married on :31st July, 1912. There were 3 children. A little while ago she learned her husband was living with another young Jady, Eileen Bowies. Just before last Christmas she went to the house where her husband was living. She knocked at the door and then went to the window of the bedroom. She broke the ’Window and hashed a torch, and saw

Eileen Bowles and her husband in bed together. He was still living with Eileen Bowles. Sarah Eliza Budd said she accompanied Mrs Watkins tu the house to where Watkins was living. It was 11 o’clock at night. When Mrs Watkisn broke the bedroom window and flashed the torch she saw Kiloen Bowles scamper out of the bedroom. Watkins was in bed. A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months. Interim custody of the three children to be granted to the petitioner. Costs allowed against respondent on the lowest scale. Mr Biss, who appeared for respondent, said that his client desired access to the children. His Honour said the question of. access to the children could be determined when the decree was moved absolute. JENKINS v. JENKINS. Jessie Miiladelphia Jenkins petitioned for a divorce from George Edward Jenkins- jockev. on the grounds of desertion.’ 'Mr Biss appeared for peti-

tioner. . Petitioner said she was mamed t George Edward Jenkins, jockey, of Gisborne, on 31st May. 1921. There was a child born before the marriage, which was legitimatised on the dnv of theii marriage. He went away on the du.v of f 1,0 wedding, and she returned to her father’s home. Her husband said he would trv and get a home for her. He wrote letters for about o months from the date of the wedding, during which period lie sent her £B. She had written asking him to make a home, but he had not replied. She lost tiace of him till June last, when she ascertained he was a jockey riding at the Napier races. She had not recedeed anv communication trom him since December, 1921. Her father had provided her with a home. Her father had kept the child also. Peroival Thomas Edwards, fanner, of Eketalnnm, father of petitioner, said that after his daughter's marriage the husband had no money to pay her train fare. The husband went away on the train and witness took his daughter home. She and the child had li\cd -with him ever since. For over three years past his daughter had had no letters or support from Jenkins. In June, ]924, witness saw Jenkins at the Napier races. Jenkins said he never intended to come back, and the best tiling ins wife could do was tw get the divorce. A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute after the expiration of three months; petitioner to have custody of the child. Costs on the lowest scale were allowed against respondent. DAVIES v. DAVIES. Olive May Davies, of Carterton, y. Waiter Davies, farm labourer. Application to have a decree nisi made absolute. Air Burridge appeared for petitioner. His Honour made the decree nisi absolute.