IN DIVORCE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14979, 28 May 1914, Page 4

IN DIVORCE.

(Before his Honour Mr Justico Dcnniston.) A DOUBLE CASE.

Mr Hunt applied to bax"o the cases of Elsia E. Raddou v. K. H. Radrlon and David F. Oldridge v. Elva L. Oldridgo and another, taken together, on the grounds that the evidenco was the same in both cases, but they were taken separately. Mr Hunt said that David Oldridgo .married bis wife on May sth. 1809, end they lived together at Tai Tapu and Christchurch. On March sth, 1913, Mrs Oldridge disappeared, leaving her husband with an infant child, and wont away with Raddon, her husband's sister's husband. Mrs Raddon, the deserted wife, took steps to have her husband arrested by taking out a warrant, fant the_ police were unablo to execute it. She, however, received a letter from her husband at Wellington, in which he said: "Good-bye; you will never hear of nic any more. * Have mo arrested if you like, but I will rover touch Christchurch alive." In July, 1913, a letter came from Raddon at Buenos Ayres to his. wifo. Subsequently another letter came, and ako one from Mrs Oldridso to her husband from Santiago, in Chili, South America. Application was then granted to servo the Dotitinns by registered post to the last-known addresses, and " this was done, and would ho proved. David F.- Oldr»3ge, and Elsio Ethel Raddon gs.ro evidenco in support of counsel's stat<wnent.

A decree nisi was granted; with to be made- absolute in three months.

In the second cape of Raddon v. Raddon, the eridcnce in the previous case •was accepted. A decree nisi was also pranced, ■erifch leave to become absolute in three months, petitioner to have cn*to<sv of the child, six yeara of age. Costs on the lowest scale trere granted. < FALKXER r. FALKNER. In Bella M. Falkner t. Daniel J. Falkner, Mr Ritchie said' that the petition was baaed upon desertion—just an ordinary case. Petitioner faid that she had been married at Dunedin, and they had iived together for six years there. In 1906 the home tras sold up because the husband got into detit through beiog addicted to drink. He had been a traveller tor the 'Tablet" newspaper. Thereafter petitioner had to support herself by takins a position & s housekeeper. , Her besband went to his own people, and did not support herj and she never saw him again. Andrew Christie also gave evidence. A decree nisi "was granted, irith leave for it to be at the expiration of three'months.

BROWN v. BROWN. In Jano Brown v. Honry J. Brown, Mr C. Stringer appeared for petitioner, whoso plea, was for a dissolution of marriage On tho grounds of cruelty and habitual drunkenness.

Petitioner eaid that her husband bad been, a drunkard for the last four or five years. He was a labourer, and when drunk knocked her about considerably. Margaret Xowton eaid that sho had seen. Brown strike this wife and illtreat her. He had lifted an axe and struck her on the leg with it. and was frequently drunk. Ho bad also threatened to "cettle her."

W. A. D. Banks, clerk of the Magistrate's Court, Christ-church, gavo evidenco tas to Brown hating been committed to Roto Roa for two years as an habitual inebriate.

A decree nisi was granted with leave for it to be made, absolute at the expiration of three months.

QUARTLEY r. QUARTLEY. Annie C. Quartley (Mr G. T. Wcston) v. Charier E. Quartley, petition for a divqreo on the grounds of cruelty, habitual drunkenness, adultery and failure to maintain.

Petitioner said that when she married hex husband ho was a wardor in the Samaritan Home, Christchurch, but he began to drink, and was discharged. Afterwards they wont to Wellington and Otaki, but in July. 1908, her hus band became a tram conductor in Wellington. Since then he had been eereral times in various mental hospitals owing to suffering from delirium tremens. In February, 1913, he left for Sydney, and she had heard from him only twice since, and had r<3ceived no support from him. When in drink ho was violent and cruel to herself and child. Ho had tried to choke her, and had threatened to cut her throat. Petitioner had supported herself with the assistance of her father.

Petitioner's sister con6rmod petitioner's evidence, as also did Mrs Wallworth, Melbourne, on some points. A decree nisi was granted with permission for tt to be mado absolute in threo months. Petiticner was given, custody of the child, and costs "wore granted-against respondent. KERR v. KERR. Tv William N. Kerr (Mr J. H. Upham) v. Margaret Kerr, petitioner's plea was b.ised upon alleged desertion on the part of his wife.

Petitioner said he was a painter by trade, and married respondent on January L x nd, 1899, and lived in Auckland for about a year, whero he had a home and a pood business. His wife became dissatisfied with the dullness of the life, and left him to go to Sydney about the end of 1899. She- sold up tho furniture while he was f,way at work. Ho gavo up some cftntracts and went to Sydney, and they became reconciled, and lived together until 1902. Then sho left for New-Zealand to see her people, and wrote to him, saying chat-she was not coming back. Shortly afterwards he soI3 up in Sydney, and went to Lawrenco (Otago) to see- her. Thoy again became reconfiled, and came to Christchurch, where tliey stayed till July, 1905. She then became thoroughly dissatisfied, and said she wished she had never been married, and wanted to go housekeeping. She sold the furniture to a private dealer, and left hjm, and he returned to Sydney. She refused to come hack, and had agaiu refused subsequently when he returned from Sydney. E. A. Goodwin, gardener, Christchurch, also gavo evidence. A decree nisi was granted, with leave t for it to be made absolute »in throe months. DA VIES v. DAVIES. In John Davies (Mr R. T. Leathern) v. Susannah M. Davies and another, petitioner wiid ho was married on July 17th, ISBB, and lived with his wife at Ivaiapoi, where five children were born. 11l 1596, with his consent, his wife went to Auckland for about a. year. She did not return, he went up and brought her home in 1897. For about two years they lived in Christchnrch, and another child was born? In 1899, when he was working at the jielfast Freezing Works. s>he disappeared, •without the children and without leaving nny menace. The pob'co traced his wife to Richmond. Nelson, but she had never written to him, and he had not seen her since, and now had no idea where she was. Mrs J. Richards stated that she had received a letter saying that the wifo was on her way to Sydney, but had never heard from her 6jnce. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to be mado absolute at the expiration of three months. ANDERSON v. ANDERSON. Charles William Anderson asked for the dissolution of his marriage with Auric May Anderso-> on tho ground of adultery, Richard "Wiblin, of Wellington, labourer, being cited as co-respou-dent. : . Air Leathern appeared for petitioner, and stated that he was a labourer livina; at Bangicra. He was manned to respondent on January 22nd, 1908 There was one child of the marriage. Shortly aftor his marriage , jjctit joror worked at Grovetown. near Blenheim, oh the same iob with Wiblin. .with

T.horn his wife became \ u 1909. He and his wife lived toother until Jamiarv. 1910. when she fiualh left him. She had previously .left him on several occasions for days a t a time, saying that she was Going to her mother at Blenheim. Ho 6aw hfir several times with Wiblin, monstrated with her. Sho met him at her mother's place. One night sho came homo at 11 p.m.. after petitioner bad scone to bed. He let bor in and taxod her with bein.a with Wiblj n which she denied. After she finnllv left witness she went to live with r e} 3. tires. Wiblin went there to board also. These left the place and wont to Seddon, yeitness's wife then renting the house in her own name, Wiblin KrW with her until Autrust. 1012. They then went to Wellineton, where tho\ were still living together. A child wa* born to his wife on June 30th. 19n eighteen months after sho had left petitioner. Tho birth certificate, pro. ducod. pave petitioner's name as the father of the child, which was not the case. Petitioner wanted the custody of his own child, which was now with respondent. His Honour said that some evidence was necessary to corroborate the statement of petitioner that his wife and coresnondent had been living together. R. T. Leathern stated that ho had written a letter to respondent, addressed to "Mrs Wiblin. 215 Taranaki fctrect. Wellington." Tho letter was marked to bo returned if not claimed within seven days. The letter had not been returned, and witness had received no reply. His Honour eaid ho had no reason to doubt petitioner's story, which, however did not redound much to his credit. He had, apparently, regarded his wife's conduct in a very freo and easy manner. A decree nisi was p-anted. with leave to movo to make it absoluto in three months. CROSS v. CROSS. Tho next caso considered tlint of Heleno G. Cross (Mr W. J. Hunter) v. Charles E. Crass, a petition for div-. orce on the grounds of desertion and failure to maintain. The marriage took place in 1906, but the respondent frequently got drunk, and in 1909 he deserted her. Hβ had not provided a homo for her, and she hod to earn her own living. The decreo nisi , was granted, with tho usuai permission to movo to make tho rule absolute.

BURRAGE v. BURRAGE

Ethel Francis Burrage (Mr S. Q. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr A. W. Bishop) sought a dissolution of her marriage with John Burrage, on the ground that lie had committed an unnatural offence.

Petitioner stated Hint she was married to respondent at Dunedin on July Ist. 1003. They had lived in Dunedin and then in Balolutha, and later in Ashburton, from-July, 1910, till May, 1912, and sinco then" in Christchurch. There were three children by the marriage. She had lived happily with her husband, who was a mercer in Chriatchureh until his arrest. "At present ho was in Lyttclton Gaol. A decree nisi was cranted with leav» to move to make it absolute in thrw months. Custody of the three children \rae granted to petitioner.

COOMB 3t. COOMBS,

Charles Coombs (Mr Fleeter) pevtioued for the dissolution of his m«rliagG to Edith Maud Coombs, on th<? ground of misconduct, John Ealam being cited as co-respondent. Tho petitioner said that tho marriage took place on December 30th. 1901. aud he aud his wife lived together unti : 1910. There was one child of the mar riago. In January. IDIO, his wife lof' lier honle and went to live at Lyttelton with a Mrs Ealam. Petitior.or asked her to return home, and also wrote to her, but received no reply Slie stayed in Lyttelton'five weeks, an/ then wpnt Ut V'ellm.Kton.-Later elureturned t" , Lyttislfoii r^"*^"'-- .

lived at Heathoote aud at Wooleton. Birth certificates of two "■cn?Wren,,.bor:> to respondent on November •"'? ■ ftud on July Ist. U913 respectively, were produced. ■ 'Anssns "Donak'con stated tl'at W «nd c>r n^Kin(le n! with copies of. the «Tt-!»tj6n. Thbv wei-' living as Mr «n<! Mrs Ealanv at a in Sfe. Asanh street. ■ His Honour crra'itod a tk-cree vrifh T«nve to apnly to inafcp ifc abfio lii*-f> in ope* , " T>oin,e allowed against the eo-respomJent. CARTER v. CARTER. James Carter (Mr Smiths©?)) petitioned lor a. divoreo from Klizabeif' Carter on tho ground of desertion. Petitioner stated ho was superintendent of the Swianor ■ Fire Brigade, aud TV as married to tho respondent on Nd rombor 2Dtli.- 1904. Tlifey lived a; Sumner nntif March, 1906. On ie turning homo on that occasion petitioner found tho letter (produced) in hi * wifo's handwriting. She had .cono hv returned ahoii , . live weeks later. Sh< I left him twice afterwards, and finals !in October, 1906. Petitioner had live*! in Sumner ever since, but had not seei. i his wife.

Herbert Carter, eon of petitioner, and Constable Hwnptou, gave corro* borativ6 oridenC4. .

A decree nisi was granted with leer© to apply to make it absolute in three months. ROBSON T. ROBSOX. Fanny Augusts Amelia Robson (M\ Cassidy) petitioned for the dissolntioa of her marriage to Edward Hobsoa on the ground or doseriion. Petitioner stated that &ho was married to respondent on September 14th| 1899, and liTod with him at Richmond, Christohurch, for ten months. Oα July 24th. 1900, bor hu&band left bom© saying tiat ha V3s going to Auckland for two weeks. _ She bad telegram» frcui him at Wellington and Aueklsnd, l>ut had not heard of him since. She :nado search for him and traced him as far as Aucklar*3, from which plaro a steamer sailed for San Franciaco on July 2Sth. 1000. Previously he btiA told tor of property he owned in England, and ho obtained a loan from a Christehurcli eentleman on that representation irhich Tras false. Ho had alsA borrowed from his pnrtner. Charles A. G. LanffW. brother of petitioner, also gave evidence.

A docveo nvsi was i?rant«d. trith I«avo to apply to make it absolute in throy months.

Tbo Court fclien adjourned till 2 p.ci tc.-dar.