LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 514, 22 May 1909, Page 10

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT. UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES, TEN MARRIAGES DISSOLVED. , No« fower than twelve undefended diyorce ! juits came before Mr. Justice, Chapman . , yo3torday. In ton" of thorn, a decree nisi was, granted, and in the other two decision ■ was reserved Upon a point which is of some, interest.. .■■■■. / NEWCOMBE V. NEWCOMBE. Ethel May Newcombe sought a dissolution ■ of her marriago with Bertram'Nwoombe on : the ground of desertion for a period of upwards of five years. Petitioner, 'who was. represented by Mr. Luckie, stated that-she : was married to respondent at Wellington on , July 24, 1900. They lived together with, her sister "at Karori for two months, and then at Potono for three .months. Respondent thou gave up his business and began to follow . . race meetings. Owing to insufficiency of food -••w - sho became unwell, and again went to livo with her sister,.' Subsequently they lived togather fpr two months at Carterton, whoro respondent left her. During the next eight ■ months she lived with a Bister at Brooklyn. 1 : . Later they ag?in lived together, but,, in Oc- ■ , tobor, 1903, respondent deserted her at Palmorston North. She obtained a maintenance - order, Under which, however, respondent paid i. no instalments. From that time she had not ■ aoen and had bad to support herself.; .. Emma Johnston,, ' mother of petitioner, v . gave corroborative evidence. , ■ , A decree nisi was granted-, to bo made at-' ■ solute at the expiration of jthree months': with costs against respondentf on the lowest scale. I DONOVAN V. -DONOVAN. '.■■■" . Habitual cruelty: and habitual drunkenness for four years were the grounds oiv "which Janet Donovan applied for the dissolution of. , her marriage with Timothy Donovan. Petitioner, for whom Mr. Wilford appeared, ■ deposed that she .was piarried to: respondent • at the office of the registrar at Wanganui on January 25, 1879. There were elevon children of the marriage, of whom three had'died,'* Respondent was addicted to drink, and had been-very, frequently, beforo the Court. He fiad repeatedly ;■ left,' her, .without; sufficient means, and,"■for/some years,; he had net . oon- ■ tributed'to her support. ' He had alsoTieaten her sovoral-times, on one occasion inflicting severe injury. Several witnessea gave oorroberativo testz-. ,;/:inony;;,■ ";v : .- , His. Honour granted a-decree , nisi, to bo . .. mado absolute at the end of three months; with .costs on the lowest scale. - ~ SING V. SING. ' - /"•■v" "/'Ada Margaret Sing claimed tho dissolu- >■'" tion of her marriage with Wong Sing on the ground of misconduct. 1 . -- Petitioner, who- was represented by Mr. ■- Wilford, said that;she was married to idspondont at Wellington in December, 1897. She went away from respondent eight or .nine - years ago, and, in: November last, a.woman, named Gladys Morris, resided .with .respond-. tent as his wifo. . .. i : A decreo nisi was granted; to' be made absolute at the end of threo" months, with ooats on 1 the.lowest scale*■ V:' r'v;'- I .*; JV V l '' / ; -'i • STAPLES V, STAPLES. ■ v., Misconduct was the ground on which Wm. > ' Staples claimed the dissolution of his mar- •>. , . riago with Elizabeth Staples.". ■ ' ,' • ' Mr.- Wilford appeared in support' of; the ' petition. ' . ,' ' who is a bootmaker residing at v Wellingtons-stated that he was .'married* to, • respondent :at the ofiico, of. the registrar, Wellington, on' November. 17, 1899. Thero wero-no children l of.the marriage.: On May C, 1907, ■ respondent went - away, from home ••••/' •»>.. with'-a man named Frank 'Anderson, who used to serve-them vwith -piilk. . Samuel Freo said that. ho: "served tho : divorce papers on respondent and co-respond-•••V' ;ent, .who were residing at Tinakori Road, Respondent said:that sho had expected them .; • ' 'for some time. Both told. him - that they '• were pleased to get tho papers. :His; Honour printed a decree nisi,- to bo : mode absolute in three montliß; with costs . . against co-respondent on the lowest scalo: ACKERMAN V. ACKERMAN. - . Henry . Aokerman sought • the 'dissolution of hisvmarriage/with Susan Ackerman, on ■: the ground of misconduct and habitual : drunkenness. ■ Petitioner, ; who was . fepre- ■: sented by Mr.; Herdman, . deposed that, he . was .married to respondent at Christchurch : on'.October- 16," 1893., A They. lived together for nine years .there, and; subsequently, at . Melbourne for five years.: After which they had lived in various parts of: the Dominion. . : ■ There', were ten children,'of thomarriago. Respondent had been addicted to drink- tor: - - six-years, and she had left him about: nine- :■■■•«. months ago. A decreo nisi, to be made absolute at the • end', of threo months, was granted, with costs. , TAYLOR V. TAYLOR. :i .; Tho. ground on , which: Katherine Taylor f--- : claimed the .dissolution ,of.'her marriage with -J - David Alexander Taylor was misconduct, ■ "'V- . Mr. .Wilford appeared on behalf of petitioner, and Mr. Blair watched the prooeed- "' ings'for respondent. Petitioner- stated that she was married to Tospandont at Wellington on • Maroh 1,- . 1902, and thero was ono -child of the marriage. • Respondent had. ill-treated her re-1 peatedly. Ho.left her in October, 1907, ow- ! . . iing;^to ' their boarders)', Since tho proceedings ( had been' cbmmericed, . ' respondent had .:iyntten , to,:.her stating.. inter 'alia: "You knowthat you can put.me i away for good." ". ;,;.-; ) Samuel Free gave, evidence that respondent, : . ' had twico been guilty, of misconduct. A decree-nisi was granted; interim ens- . todyyrf tho'child to bo given to petitioner; and interim order of lOs. per week towards support of child'mado against , respondent, COUNIHAN V. COTJNIHAN. • ■ Edith Counihan claimed tho dissolution of > ; her marriago with Edward .Counihau on tho ■ grounds of dopertion .and misconduct. 1 Petiti&ner,- who was represented ■by -Mr. Wilford, deposed ; that she : was married to respondent at Christchurch ■on May 24, 1901. Thero was ono child, which had sinoo , ;;i \ . died. In December, 1903, respondent-: do* serted her.-.« She had since'earned her own :. -living as a barmaid. -She handed into; Court a ;numher of letters: from respondent, which had been given her by a-young woman . . named Mary 'Wilson,, to whom they woro written. After corroborativo cvidenco had been tondered, his Honour granted a decree nisi, to ■■■• bo made absohite at tho ond of three months, .. .-with costs on the lowest scale.. ' ' CHOLER'fON V. CHOLERTON. Katherino Sophio Cholcrton asked for -a dissolution of her marriago: with Edward Cholerton on . tho ground of miscondnct. Pe- -,; ■ titionor,. who was represented by Mr.' Wilford, gavo evidenoo that she was married to -i v -/ respondent,-who was a commercial traveller. - • at ISorhampore, on July 15, 1903. Respondeat, .in January . last, admitted misconduct. . Sophia . Pees, mother of petitioner, also . gave evidence. _ • -A decreo nisi, .to be mado absoluto in three months,- w4s granted, with costs. " N ' UNWIN V, UNWIN. Desertion was tho ground on which Gcrtrade .TJnwin -.prayed for a dissolution of,her marriago with Frederick Unwin. Petitioner . (for whom Mr.-Wilford appeared) stated that was maiffiiod to respondent at Otald in. There were two children of the marriago.- Respondent.deserted her.in -DW ' comber, 1903, front .which time' ahe had had ' -to maintain herself, and the children. " Upon further evidence his Honour granted

a decree nisi,. to be mado absolute at the •end of three months, with costs on tho low--est scalo.. Tho interim custody of the children was granted. toJpetitionor. MAYMAN V. MAYMAN. Frederick Mayman claimed that he was -entitled to tho dissolution of his marriage with Florence Mayman on-the ground of misconduct. . . Petitioner, who .was represented by Mr. Wiiford, . said that ,ho was-married! to respondent at Wellington on November 14, 1907, Thoro wero no children. Last year, owing to a disagreement whioh had arisen, ho wont down to tho West Coast. Respondent . later ou asked for permission to sell the homo and come to lum, and - ho .agreed-to her request. When he returned to Wellington ho found that she had sold everything, and gone to Palmerston North with one. Richard M'Kinnin. After furthor ovidence a; decrco nisi was granted, with costs. N LIVERMORE V. LIVERMORE. ' Arthur; Thomas Livermore sought a dissolution'" of -'his' 'marriago :• with Elizabeth Livermore., of fai-luro to comply' with aii .ofaer fot the restitution of conjugal rights. • ; Petitioner, who;; was represented 'by Mr. Wiiford, deposed that a decree for restitution :of conjugal-rights had been obtained by him. Since tho/service of the order respondent had not roturned .to him. I ; ,Mr. Wiiford said that, owing -to tho Consolidated A°t having come into operation, it v.'ijf) impossiblo now/ to initiate pruceeo.j for divorce on the ground, of failuro to comply with' an order for restitution of conjugal rights. The question was whether, in a" case'where the order had been obtained prior to the new law coming into force, the party who obtained that order could still .proceed to obtain a divorce despite the fact that, the ground of divorce (through the pathway of non-restitution of conjugal rights) had. been done _a way with.' When the Divorce Act was before the House he had introduced a clause to protect cases where writs were i already iu process. Tho Lower House adopted ■ ,tha clause,, but' the Upper House amended it to",such an exjent'that there was a doubt as' to whether it preserved the original intention.''Then camo the Consolidated Act,-: which a provision protecting tho right for divorce in cases where the order restitution had 1 already been granted, an. "J the present case. Mr.'Wiiford added that tho order .was applied for. on November 14,1907, and granted ih February, 1908, and the date of the petition for divorce was Septembor 17, 1908. Under/both avenues created by Section 10 of .the Consolidated, Act petitioner was, he submitted; entitled to a decree'nisi.That section read as under: "With respect only to dcere-OS for restitution of conjugal rights, made..before the dato of the ooming ■into operation of the Divorce and Matrimonial, Causes'Aot, 1907, and to similar decrees, made thereafter' in suits for restitution 1 of conjugal right-s commenced beforo that date, if tho respondent fails to comply with such decree' such respondont shall thereupon be deemed to havo been guilty of desertion .without reasonable cause, and a suit for dissolution of marriage, or for judicial '.'separation.may.be forthwith instituted; aud ti-decreo nisi for .tho; dissolution of fcHp marriago, or a idecreo of judicial separation may be pronounced on tho ground of desertion, although tho period'fixed in tho caso of desertion may not .have'olapsod sinco-tho failure to comply 1 with tho dccreo 'for restitution of conjugal rights."' -.. His Honour said that he would take time to consider his decision. : ' LIVERMORE V,. LIVERMORE. In tho fiext case, that of Horaco George Liverinorb: versus- Elizabeth .Livermore, . the circumstances wore similar. * ... . Potitioner, for whom Mr. Wilford/also: appeared,^deposed'tbat.ho obtained a decree foi restitution, of conjugal rights on February 13 1908. His wjfo had not,, however, returned to'him. . .; , .... ' Decision was also reserved in this case..