LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1674, 14 February 1913, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

DIVORCE CAUSES. (Before His Honour Mr. Juntice Chapnian) Several undefended dlvarco eases wero disposed of In tho Supronio Court ycetorday, before Mr. Justice Chapman. Tlio fiittlnj (including somo Blight dolny.i) oocupiod from 10.35 p.m. until 11.45 p.m., ono case being, taken in cam-

Misconduct was tho ground on which Annie Ashtou sought dissolution of her "'"mag o with Charles Ashton. Mr. T. M. Wilforu appeared for the petitioner. Tho parties were married on February 13, 190 D, and lived together at Petone, tho respondent lioing employed in tho Gear Meat Company's works. Corroborative evidence as to tho occasions of misconduct having been tendered, his Honour granted a decree nisi to bo made absolute in threo months. Petitioner was allowed costs on_ the lowest scale. i Victoria May Werthoim, for whom Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared, petitioned for divorce from Frank Philip Wertheim, on the ground of desertion and failuro to maintain. The parties were married at Hobart on May 13, 1901, and lived together in Tasmania until 1903. They then eamo to New Zealand, and continued to live together for three years. 'I'hero was ono child. In 190G respondent deserted his wifo. Ho was brought back to Christchurch. on warrant, but,- on tho proceedings being withdrawn, ho again left his wife, and tince then had failed to' maintain her. A decreo nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months. Respondent was nllowed costs on the lowest scale, and - granted interim custody of tho child.

In tho case of Samuel Evans Davios r. Janet Davies, a defence bad been filed, but it was subsequently abandoned. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for tho petitioner. The parties were married at Sydney on January 12, 1909, and lived together for some time at Dunedin. Subsequently the respondent left her home, and had sinoe been travelling in company with a man, named Allen. The latter had admitted a charge of misconduct. A decrco nisi was granted, to be mado absolute in three months. . • ■ Frances Fynes sought dissolution of her marriage with Charles Fynes, on the ground of desertion and failure to maintain. The parties were marriod at Penguin, Tasmania, on Juno 9, 1879, and lived together in Tasmania and New Zealand until February, 1907. Therei wero two children. For tho past six years petitioner had' not soon anything oKlier husband, and she had had to support herself and children. After evidence of theso facts had been tendered, his Honour granted tho usual decree, with costs against tho respondent .on tho lowest scale. T

Mr. A. Dunn appeared for Rose Florence Perham, who asked for a divorce from Theophilus William Perham, who, it was alleged, had been guilty of-miscon-duct. The parties were married in Wellington on September 20, 1905. and lived together in this city until June, 1909, when, on account of her husband's violent temper, the petitioner left , him., The husband thon went to Christcliurch; but afterwards returned to Wellington, ana had since been living with one Lucy Williams. Evidence that tlio respondent had admitted as much was given, and his Honour, made a decree nisi, to be moved absolute at the'end-of tho usual term. Petitioner was allowed casts on tho lowest scale. ■ .

The grounds of tho petition in tho caso of Mary Anderson v. John William Anderson were misconduct and cruelty. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for tho petitioner. The parties were married in Wellington on July 31, 1902, and afterwards lived together nt Levin and Otaki. Since September, 1910, respondent had be?n living with one Bertlia Anderson, at Wereroa, and-ho had admitted this to petitioner's solicitors, and also to the petitioner. Tho dccreo nisi was granted, to Ira made absolute in three months, resnondent bring ordered to pay-costs on the lowest scale. Mary Willcox, for whom Mr. T. M. Wilford : appeared, prayed that her marriaiw with Thomas Edward Willcox should ;bo dissolved on tho ground of misconduct. Tlio marriage took placo in Wollinfrton on July 20, 1908, and the parties had lived together in this city until May. 19)1. About that time respondent admitted misconduct, with Grace TTHy, and as a result the petitioner left him. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be mado nbsoluto in threo months, respondent to. pay costs, on tho lowest scale. The caso of Matthew Dixon r.'.'Flnra' R; Tli.-cnn -'was taken in camera. Mr. T. M. Wilford anprared .for tM petitioner." A dccrso nisi was granted on tho usual terms.

CIVIL-SITTINGS. DISSOLUTION OF. PARTNERSHIP. . Yesterday afternoon his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman heard au action for dissolution of partnership. The Public Trustee, a; committco of tho estate of Frederick August Toppe, . proceeded against Arthur Ernest l'oppe, farmer, of Makirjkiri South, to obtain'a dissolution of the' partnership existing between ]'. A. l'oppe aud A. B. Poppe, trading as Poppe 8r05... The Public Trustee also asked that accounts be taken. Mr. J. W. Macdonald, solicitor for. tho Public Trust Office, appeared for the plaintiff. ' After hearing evidence, his Honour made a decreo for diasolutifin of tho partnership, nnd ordered accounts to be token. ■ Costs aro to bo pa id. out'of the partnership assets. . CHANGE OF VENUE. ASKED. , A sumtuons for change of venue, in tho case of the C. A. Edgarton Manufacturing Co. v. Macky, Logan, Caldwell, Ltd., was, heard in Chambers in the' Supremo Court before Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday afternoon. Defendants moved to have the case heard, in Auckland, instead of Wellington. ■ 'Mr. A. W. Blair appeared in support of tho motion, which was opposed by Mr. T. Young, on behalf of tho plaintiffs. Tho case involves an alleged infringement of a registered trade marK in the sale of suspenders in Wellington., After hearing argument, his Iloiiou.' reserved decision. | PARTICULARS SOUGHT. The divorce petition, John Fuller v. Alice Gertrude Mijjry Fuller nnd Henry Percy Harris, wnsMuontioiicd ill the. Supreme Court in Chambors yesterday, before Mr; Justice Chapman. There were two matters before tho ' Court—respondent's summons for further particulars and petitioner's summons for a commission to take, evidence in Australia!

Mr. i\ M. Wilford appeared for the respondent,'while Mr. E. 11. Sladdcn appeared for the petitioner. There was no opposition to the summons for the commission, and his Honour made an order accordingly. The summons for further particulars wns opposed by counsel for tho petitioner, who submitted that the particulars supplied were sufficient. After hearing argument, his Honour said he could only make an order asking the petitioner to be as specific as he can in nnmiiur the dates and places to which he will direct his evidence. This would not prevent tho calling of other evidence as to allegations within the specified period.