THE DIVORCE COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1831, 18 August 1913, Page 9

THE DIVORCE COURT.

HAKHIS V. HAHEIS. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman heard several applications for divorce at the Supreme Court on Saturday. Amy Charlotte Harris sued for a dissolution of .her marriago with Charles William Harris. Mr. Wilted represented petitioner. The suit was undefended. Mrs. Amy Charlotte Harris stated that she was married in June, 1894, at Christchurch, to William Charles Harris. Her husband left her in June, IM6. He had no reason to leave her, so far as she knew, but she had never seen, him since, nor had he written <o her or seat her any money. Sho had been housekeeper to an old lady during the last 61 years. There were no children. His Honour granted a decree to be made absolute within sis months. BOWDEN V. BOWDEN. Margaret Jean Bowden asked for the dissolution of her marriage with George Carlislo Bowden. -Mr. Wilford appeared for the petitioner. The suit was not defended. Jli-s. Bowden stated that she was married to her husband in June, 1902, at Wellington, and there was one boy, of ten years, who lived with her. Her husband deserted her in August, 1907, since tfhea he had never Uvea with her. nor supported her. In 1908 he wrote, asking her for money,- and she sent him several separate amounts, including J!6, "for his return fare." A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after three months. CHAMPION V. CHAMPION AND SIMONSEN.

Samuel Champion claimed the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Mary Jano Chamfiion, Ernest Simonseu being cited as co-respondent.

Mr. Dunn represented the petitioner, and Mr. Arrowsmith appeared for the co-respondent.

Samuel Champion stated that he was married to respondent in January, 1908, at the Registrar's Office, Wellington, and lived with her for thirteen months, and there was no issue. A separation order was made,, at tho wife's instance, on February 1, 1909, since when ho ha<l nover cohabited with his wife, nor had he even seen her. The order was ntade because of persistent cruelty and failure to maintain, llis wifo went to Masterton to live with her sister, and last Christmas, when he went to Mafctertou, ho found that his wife had given birth to a child in October.

Siinonsen in an. affidavit admitted the facts.

His, Honour said the separation order was binding, and though it did not give a license to commit adultery, he would have to consider whether it was a ground for granting a divorce. There was no defence raised, but he would take time to consider, and, in any case, would not allow costs. ALLWRIGHT V. ALLWRIGHT. Constance Edith Louanna AllWright sued for the dissolution of her marriago with Robert Sydney Allwright. Mr. AlperS (Christchurch) appeared for the petitioner, The suit was undefended. Petitioner stated that she married Tes-'! pondent at Christchurch in May, 1908, but they never lived together. She resided with her mother, but after three weeks her husband ceased to visit her. 110 made appointments to Fee her by let'tcr, but these wero not kept. Tho'last occasion on which sho met her husband was on .Tune 22, 1908, and she had not spoken to hint since, though she had seen him in the streets. • Sho had not received a penny from him. Cecily A'Cuurt, a friend of tlio married couple, told the Court that this was a secret marriage, and that tho bride's mother did not know of it. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, costs on the lower scale being allowed. ' MURPHY V. MURPHY. Georgina Murphy applied for a liition of her marriage with Michael James Murphy, and was represented by Mr. "Wilford. Mrs. Murphy stated that the marriage took place on April 23, 1901, at the residence of Mr. Harris, Harper Street, "Wellington. They lived together, but tlievo was no issue, and in January, 1908, her liusband deserted her, si'neo when she had maintained herself, he having been convicted several times for drunkenness, and bSiug guilty of cruelty to her. Tho order was granted. . MASON V. MASON. Mary Masoui applied for a dissolution of her marriage with Ilonry Mason, a seaman. Mr. "Wilford, on her behalf, pointed out that tho five years' desertion took place before the respondent went into tho asylum. His Honour: I don't see that that matters.

Mr. Wilford then moved that Mr. Henry Hugh Ostler bo appointed guardian on behalf of the husband, who was still in tho asylum, and his Iftmour and Mr. Ostler agreed. Mary Mason stated that she was married on December 2G, 1900, and lived with her husband until January, 1905, when ho. deserted her, she having supported herself by charing and washing ever since. Her husband hod been in an asylum at Auckland since July, 1910. His Honour: He may have been insano before that, and lie could not continue wilful desertion if ho was insane. The case was then adjourned for Mr. Ostler to make, the necessary inquiries before the order was granted. MAPPLEBECK V. MAPPLEBECK. Beaumont Ma-pplebeck, late of Leicester, England, and now a factory manager in Wellington, sued for dissolution of his marriage with Sarah Ann Mapplel>eek, who was still residing at Leicester, on .tho ground of her adultery and drunken habits. Mr. Wilford, on behalf of petitioner, said that he formerly lived in England. The case was out of the ordinary, because the Registrar had received a letter from Mr. Bullmau, solicitor, Leices. ter, wliere respondent still resided, stating that she was an honourable woman, lie also forwarded a document signed by certain people, vouching for her- respectability and to tho impossibility of her being guilty of tile offence wi'th which sho was charged. Unfortunately for the solicitor and for respondent, however, they had a witness who for many years was a policeman on the Great Northern Railway at Leicester, and a letter from ono of the daughters, who had signed tho' petition. Tho former would give evidence of respondent's drunken habits, and the daughter's letter showed that her mother was drinking and coming home at two o'clock in the morning. He also had tho evidenco of two other witnesses that she was. a confirmed drunkard, and that she was habitually in loose company. The marriage took place on December 25, 1891, and petitioner .came out to New Zealand in Mny, IDOfi. his wife promising to follow him. Sho stated that sho had had no money, but it. would bo proved that she had regular maintenance from her husband. Her letter was absolutely false from start to finish, as it stated that sho was bedridden, that she did not drink, that s'lio did not go out with men, and that she had received no support from her husbandI—all1 —all of which was false. Beaumont Mapplebech. a boot manufacturer's manager, and Albert George Caines, formerly a policeman employed on the Great Northern Railway, having given evidence, his Honour reserved judgfnent oh. the question of respondent's letter, tliougli, lie said, he was perfectly satisfied with the evidence.