IN DIVORCE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 67, 12 December 1907, Page 5

IN DIVORCE.

UNDEFENDED CASES. His Honour Mr. Justice Button held a sitting in Divorce yesterday morning. Sophia Howat jjetitioned for tho dissolution of her marriage with Charles Howat, i.ii tho. ground .that.he had disobeyed an order for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner (for whom Mr. Wilford appeared) gave evidence that the order was made in August, 1906, and that her husband had not returned to her.

A' decree 'nise was: granted, to bo made absolute at tho expiration of three, months. ■

. Theophilus George Love sought a dissolution of his-marriage with Mary' Love, on-the ground of desertion, ■ ■ * Mr. Wilford appeared for the petitioner. . Evidence was given by petitioner that hewas married to respondent at '.Auckland in 1869. There were'no children of '.the marriage. In 1574, his wife cleared away with a sea-faring man named Hunt. Petitioner had not seen either of them sinco..

, His Honour: This is a case of a woman going-away from her-own true Love, d

\ Decree- nisi was granted,- to be made, ?b : solute at the expiration of three months.

; Nathaniel -Burgess applied for tho dissolution of his marriage, with Adolia Burgess, on, tho ground of her adultery at Sydney with a telegraph" operator namcil Jones. • Petitioner, who was representod by Mr: wilford; deposed that ho and his wife camo t i Now Zealand from Adelaide in -1903. In August, .1906, his wiio went to Sydney ior. two months. On her return, she'admitted having^committed adultery with co-respond-ent.' Petitioner produced a letter which had been sent to respondent' by a man residing at raihape,. His wife was now addicted to drink.

ir-L 0 , ; flairs, accountant to Messrs. ft! ford and Levi, deposed that respondent' had admitted to' him that she had' misconducted herself.'

Counsel mentioned that the cost of serving tho, necessary, papers -on co-respondent, nad been over £14. ■ . "

A decree nisi was granted, Mr. Wilford undertaking to-file the Court's order for ser-' vioe.out of the Dominion. Petitioner. was granted the custody of the. child

William Drvden Oliver prayed the Court 'to' decree that his marriage with- Mpry Louisa °!'r or r b 1 d '^ h ' cd ° n tlio pound of adultery '*'#! Jack Williamson, of Wellington, driv»r Mr. Wilford appeared for the petitioner" '" In ovidence, petitioner stated that lie was married to respondent at Petonc on MarJi 2D, 1902. Thore was two children -of tile marriage. His wife left him' in 1906. She lived ■ with, co-respondent at-'Mrs. -Wylds's lodging-house in Sydney Street from OctoW' 1906, until January, 1007. His wife'.told him that she would soonor live with co-re-spondent because sho liked liirn better. " UcHjtondent had custody of one of the children and hor mother kept the other*. : Emma Wylds deposed that during . tho months in question respondent and co-rcspbn-dont resided at her piace as man and wife. : A decree-nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in throe months. An intorim older for the custody of tho nhildren was .also granted ,to patitioncr. Costß on the lower scale were allowed against co-rospondcnt.

Arthur Oswald Hoskins sought tliedisso* lution of his marriage with Rose -Hannah' Hoskins on the, ground of her adultery with; Jack'Nicholl, formerly of Karori, milkm.in. ; . Mi;. Wilford appeared in support of the petition.

.Petitioner gave evidence that he was married Co respondent in 1896. There were four children of tho marriage. Hi 3 wife left bim in

October, 1904. He had not bad the moans ;to institute proceedings at an earlier d™ r e. Prior ,to tlic date on which respondent wunt a.wav .co-respondent lived at his place for n a £ IcCo-respondent tool; his wife' out at nights; and, when he ( petitioner) ohjectcd, his wife-stated that she liked co-respondent hi tter jipd would clear out with him. Petitioner had. never seen his wife sinco. S..,Eagle, brother to respondent, deposed, that, in October, 1905, co-rcspondo.nt and respondent wore residing at the J'hociiix ilotol; Palmerston Nortli. ?;'A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute at the expiration of throe months: petitioner to have custody of the children. Grijsiji .pn the lower scale wore allowed itgamst correspondent. ; ' IN CHAMBERS. . His Honour Mr. Justice Button hold a sitting in Chambers yesterday afternoon. An' interpleader summons, in which the rjval claimants against the Lowry Bay Estate Company, Ltd., were David Andrews and, Sir. Kenneth Douglas, was heard, Andrews claimed that ho was entitled to priority. 'for tho sum of £387 10s., being tho amount payafclo on an order given by tho contractor, William Wilson, to the Company ; hut,..it ,was objected that this .order only related to tho final payment duo under the contract, and-enabled the contractor to receive and assign tho progress payments under tho contract. .Sir Kenneth Douglas claimed under an order for £320. given Dy tho contractor for moneys advanced, upon certain progress payments, and of. this amount £125 lis. had been paid by the Company. If was claimed on Sir .Kenneth Douglas's behalf that his order.took priority, because it was payable in respect of , progress payments, and that Andrews' order related only to the final payment, due under tho contract. His Honour made tho following order Judgment .for claimant, Sir Kennoth Douglas, for £194,95., tho. amount to be a first charge on;'tho fund; claimant to be allowed fifteen guineas costs and disbursements. Tho main actipn, Andrews versus the Lowry Bay Estate. , Company, Ltd., would "be dismissed without-prejudice to .tho.right of Andrews to lining-a fresh action against the Company ,in respect ■of • wrongful, progress payments. Plaintiff, Andrews, would bo entitled to <e.ceiv'e ,the balance of the moneys in tho hands of tho. Company. The Company would be .allowed fifteen- guineas • costs oil both the action and tho interpleader summons. Mr,;C. P. ; Skorrett, K.C., appeared for Sir Kenneth 1 Douglas; Mr. A. Dunn for Andrewsand Mr. H. Johnston for the Company. ;