SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1994, 27 February 1914, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

FOUR PETITIONS IN DIVORCE. His Honour the-Chief Justice (Sir Robert .Stout);, beard thrice .petitions in • divorce yesterday,'■another leing Heard by Mr. . Justico Hosking. Arnold William Ripley Ja comb petitioned for a divorce-from Elsa Emily Jacomb. E. 'H. Thompson was named I as co-respondent. • Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the petitioner. Thero was' 110 appearance',, of respondent or co-re-spondent. Tho parties wero married in 1903, and.there were three, children. In January, 1910, Mrs. Jacomb, left her husband, taking'the youngest child with lior, and from that day the: husband: bad not seen her. Evidence of misconduct was given by' petitioner, who said that lus had reason to believe tbat respondent was now in Sydnev. His Honour, in granting a decree nisi, said that no case had been proved against the co-respondent Thompson. Mary Jane Martin was granted a, decree nisi against her husband, Henry Campbell Martin, on the ground of misconduct. Mr. R. B. Williams appeared for the petitioner. It.wa3 stated in evidence that the parties were married in 190S, and that the.v separated bv consent in 1913. A letter from the respondent, admitting misconduct, was put in by petitioner. A condition attached to the decreo was that petitioner should have custody; of the ono child • of the marriage.

[■ Unsupported Allegation. The petition Thomas Rae v. Elizabeth .Rae' was defended. Mr. A., W. Blair appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. T. M-. Wilford for respondent. The ground alleged for tho petition was -desertion, and this tho'respondent denied.. It appeared during the hearing'of the caso:that the parties were-married in England in 1892. When they came to Now Zealand, Rae obtained employment as a.Government messenger. His earnings were sufficient to - keep his wife, but.she preferred to earn more money by. keeping boarders. Presently trouble arose over the presence of a certain inmate in the house, and petitioner then' insisted oh giving up the boardinghouse. She refused, and ultimately, in 1908', she left for Australia. '

Mr. Wilford addressed the Court on behalf of Mrs: Rae. Ho suggested that she had loft her husband because of a certain reason which he specified. His Honour held that desertion had been proved, and Granted a decree nisi, but: orderedjNpetitioner to pay Mr. Wilford's costs'. His Honour commented on the fact that nn evidence, had been calle'd in support of certain allegations made'-by Mrs. Rao's* solicitor.' •;

Unhappy. Mensgo. Edmund Earl Furness petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage'with Blanche Lawson Furriers on the. ground, of .misconduct. The co-respondent named was Leonard Cooke, bank clerkr' now in'"West Aiist'rali.iV] This-case was heard bv Mr. Justice Hpsking and a jury. Mr. H. F.' O'lieary appeared for the petitioner,' Mr. 0. W.' Neilseri for the and Mr. A.' H. Hindmarsh for the cor;snpndont..

The petitioner gave, evidence of his wife's conduct and her.apparent!attachCooke! Frequent quarrelling between the husband on' the ono hand and Mrs. Furness and Cooke on-'tne|. : other,': led Jftttn«s Je,fougytqjv husband: He'.detuVd against hinV.by his .wife of 'failure'.to. provide J)er-with.^adequatfl r m"aint«nai!ce,', and pei'sistentjeruelty..'' Hb';.di;ji%h,a'lsb' that he had'over'given war to-drfnk. ■' Clara Tro?.onivLng, proprietress of the Waverley Hotel, at which tho parties stayed, said that Mrs. FuTiiess. was -always comfortable and well clad. Furnesß appeared to' witness'to bn . "an": ideal husband, a- little too easy if anything"She had ordered Mrs. Furness out of her house on account of her familiarity with Cooke. .

Other witnesses gave evidence of having seen the respondent in the company of Cook", andof their'.'apparent-friendli-ness. The chief evidence of misconduct was that of a housemaid in the hotel. 'A other witnesses gnvo evidonce_ that Furness was not given to drinking or using objectionable laneuago •-this in rebuttal of the allegations on ■ renslf of the- respondent. < The caso for the petitioner ■ was not t'omplcted when the Court rose at 5 p.m.