SUPREME COURT

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160737, 25 August 1920, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

BIVORCE CASES - UNDEFENDED PETITIONS. Petitions for divorce were heard by his Honor Mr Justice Salmond at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The first case dealt with was that of G. A. C. Greener (Mr Treadwell) v. L. M. A. Greener, M. Gordon being cited as co-respondent. There was no appearance of either respondent or co-respondent.

Mr Treadwell, before calling evidence, stated that the claim for damages bad been abandoned, also the claim ag&inst M. Hogan, who bad also been cited as co-respond-ent, but against whom no evidence would be offered.

The petitioner, in the course of his evidence, said he was married to respondent at Wellington in 1906. There were three children of the marriage. Witness left for the front at the end of 1917, and returned in January, 1919. His wife met him at Wellington, and upon his return to Wanganui he heard something; he spoke to his wife, who later left him. Witness made further inquiries and as a result these proceedings were instituted.

To his Honor: He had not discussed her conduct with his wife. The respondent left the children when she left home. Evidence as to misconduct on the part of respondent and co-respond-ent was given by the son of petitioner. He said that co-respondent started to come to the house while his father was in camp, and subsequently practically made his home there. After hearing further evidence his Honor made a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months. Costs on the highest scale were made against co-respondent. The next petition presented a case which contained some rather curious features. The petitioner was the wife of C. L. Carr, who applied for dissolution of her marriage with W. H. Carr on account of misconduct. Respondent, it was alleged, was living under the name of Carle at Masterton. Christina Carr said that she was married to the respondent at Blackburn, England, in 1890, , The parties lived in various parts of England and there were four children. In 1908 the respondent disappeared with a young woman. Petitioner received a letter from Capetown from respondent telling her that he had gone off with the woman. Respondent and the woman were finally located at Masterton, New Zealand. Respondent occasionally sent a few pounds. Petitioner wrote to respondent telling him that she was coming with the children to New Zealand. Respondent met them at Wellington; assisted her to get luggage through the Customs, told her that he had purchased a cottage for her at Woodville, and gave her the key. Respondent sent her a cheque for £4O before she came out. Petitioner’s youngest daughter visited the respondent at Masterton. Petitioner removed to Waikupurau, and afterwards took proceedings for maintenance, but these were withdrawn. She then decided to petition for a divorce. Respondent, in letters to the petitioner, mentioned children which had been born to him by the other woman. To his Honor: It was at respondent’s request that-she brought her family out to New Zealand. A daughter of petitioner gave evidence identifying the man living at Masterton under the name of Carle as being the respondent. The hearing was adjourned till Friday morning in order to obtain evidence of identification. At the Supreme Court this morning, before His Honor Sir J. Salmond, the following divorce cases were dealt with. UNDEFENDED. Mary G. M. Robertson, Taihapo (Mr Turnbull) petitioned for dissolution of her marriage from Adam McC. Robertson on the grounds of desertion. Petitioner stated that she was married at Wanganui in August, 1908. Since then they lived at various places, and eventually went to Napier in 1915, whore her husband deserted her. There were four children of the marriage. Her husband only worked for about two months after they went to reside at Napier, and then developed the tired feeling and became a regular loafer, and petitioner had to go out to work to keep the home together. After her husband deserted her, petitioner was in Palmerston Hospital for five months, having under gone a serious operation. She met him in the street one day after leaving the hospital, and then did not see him again for 13 months. In 1917 she took proceedings against him for deserting the children, and he was sent to gaol for six months. Last September she took proceedings against him for maintenance and a separation order in Wanganui. Corroborative evidence was given by a sister of petitioner regarding the desertion? In granting the decree nisi, to ho mads absolute in three months, his Honor commented upon the practice of married women who intended petitioning for divorce getting a separation order. He stated that this was a very dangerous and unnecessary practice, and a separation order up to 1913 was an absolute bar to divorce, and was so still, except under the special provision of the Amending Act of 1913. If a woman wanted a divorce, she should get one, and not a separation order, as there was no object in the latter. She could get a maintenance order or the guardianship of the children. There was neither sense of reason in getting a separation order. Arthur G. Murray (Mr Bain) petitioned for dissolution of marriage- with AgneJ C. Murray on the grounds of misconduct. The petitioner stated that the partial were married in 1908, and lived happily for some time. Respondent then began to take bad turns, and was in the habit of continually consulting a doctor. Petitioner became suspicious, and subsequent investigations led him to ask hi.l wife whether she had been true to him, and she admitted that she had not, and that she was suffering from venereal disease. His Honor said that there was a lack of corroborative evidence regarding misconduct, or that respondent was suffering from disease. The hearing was then adjourned until to-morrow to allow counsel to produce evidence, A NUKUMARU CASE. AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY. Walter James Vincent, labourer, petitioned for divorce from Frances Lilian Vincent on the ground of misconduct, Arthur Martin, farmer, Nukumaru, being joined as co--respondent.

Petitioner stated that he had. been on active service for two and a half years and returned in January, 1010, and went to work at Nukumaru for Martin, the co-respondent, and there he met his wife who was a housekeeper for Martin. He proposed marriage to respondent in October, 1919, and she refused.. Petitioner discovered since that she was then pregnant. In December, 1919, she came to petitioner and asked whether he was In the same mind and whether he would marry her. Although petitioner knew she was pregnant to another man, ho thought she would make a good wife and he consented to marry her. His Honor; She did not begin very well. Petitioner, continuing, said he married her in January, 1920, and a child was born on February 2nd. Not having a house of his own, petitioner lived on Martin' 1 .? farm. He had reasons to suspect in June that his wife was misconducting fterself with Martin, as they were always out in the motor car together. He remonstrated with her, but she took no notice of him, and still continued to go out with Martin. He also spoke to Martin, and the latter said he only took respondent out for a drive. On June 29th petitioner and his wife went to live at his father’s house. On July 6th a dance took place at Nukuniaru Hall. His wife in the morning went to Martin’s house, stating that she intended to tidy up the premises. Later petitioner saw her at the dance and at 10.30 he suggested they should go home, but she wanted to remain until later. When the dance was over his wife told him she was going to put Martin’s child to bed. Petitioner returned to his father’s home in, Martin’s car and his wife rode to Martin’s house on horseback. At 2 a.m., when his wife had not returned home, he went to Martin’s house and found his wife in bed with Martin. Martin said he had been caught. Petitioner said he would strangle him. His wife refused to return home and was still living with Martin. His Honor to petitioner; Did yon know who the father of the child w r as before you married her? Petitioner; No. His Honor: Do you mean to tell me that you never mentioned the matter of the child to her or she to you before you were married? Petitioner: No. His Honor; Did yon suspect whose child it was? Petitioner; No. His Honor: After you married her was there no conversation at all about the child? Petitioner; No. His Honor; Do you really tell me that you married the girl in January and the child was born on February 2nd and you had no conversation about the subject? Petitioner: No. His Honor: Did you mention it after the child was born? Petitioner: No. His Honor: Well, all I can say is that you seem to be a very reticent sort of person. Mr Treadwell intimated that petitioner was a simple-minded man and this would account for his strange procedure. Joseph Vincent, farmer, and father of petitioner, stated that after the episode related hy petitioner ho had a conversation with respondent and she told him that the child did not belong to either Martin or petitioner. His son w r as of a simple nature and had been wounded at the war. Witness had seen resnondent on some occasions since going to Martin’s house. The Judge said that more definite evidence could have been produced to show that respondent and Martin were living together. Mr Treadwell explained that there was a difficulty in these cases to got people to come forward to give evidende. His Honor replied that if it were known that they could be done without in divorce cases it would he more difficult still to get them to the court. His Honor then went on to state that it was a most extraordinary story. Mr Treadwell said he could not carry the case much further except to show that respondent was living at Martin’s house. She would no doubt claim that she was his housekeeper, and the only evidence be could hope to get that they were living together would be from one of Martin’s children. His Honor then asked Mr Treadwell to bring corroborative evidence to show that she had been living in Martin’s house and he would adjourn the case till Friday morning.