LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2153, 20 May 1914, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

I « i DIVORCE CASES. MARRIAGES DISSOLVED UNHAPPY UNIONS. LONG LIST OF PETITIONS A long list of undefended divorce cases was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday by His Honour Mr. Justico Hosking. No fewer than fourteen were dealt with, and in eleven cases decrees were granted. The other cases were adjourned to allow His Honour to look into certain points. -■■In tho case David Milligan (Mr S A. Atkinson) v. Augusta M. M. Milligau (Mi. A. A. S. Menteath) application for divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion, an order for security ol costs, for respondent, was granted, on the application of Mr. Menteath, who stated that the petitioner was a lnan of ample means. The application was not opposed. ' Mr. Atkinson'claimed that constructive desertion began not later than March 9, 1909, when petitioner and his wife were making a voyage to England. Respondent met a man on the float, and her feelings became deeply "Jv 0 i , > and she told petitioner that shfe. had made a vow never to allow him a husband's lights again. No suggestion of misconduct was made. Petitioner, a merchant tailor in Wellington, said that he was married to the respondent in January, 1903, and lived with her, in Wellington, till 1909, when they went on a visit to Eugland. He had lived happily with his. wife till time, but on the voyaige an estrangement arose. He thought that his wife was spending too much -time with a passenger. Ho appealed to them to give up meeting, and, later, in their' cabin, respondent stated that she had decided to deny her husband his rights. The estrangement continued throughout the voyage, and petitioner returned to Australia before his wife. At- Sydney lie received a letter from his wifo, in which she said that sho would let bygones be . bygones, piovided that petitioner would follow the same course. Petitioner wrote a letter, indicating that he was willing to receive his wifo back. He went to the wharf to meet' her, but a warm welcome did not ensue, and respondent made tho statement that there was nothing in Sydney to interest her, and asked that sho should bo allowed to go back to London, .to. "map out a career in some* thing that appealed to her." She sometimes mentioned a . stage career, and said that petitioner .might as well allow her to go back. Ho . turned 0- deaf ear to tho applications, and made life as happy as he could for respondent, hoping that she would soon settlo down. This was not tho case, however. Up till April, 1911, petitioner used every means in his power: to effect a-reconciliation. Towards the end of .April respondent asked for' ah allow-

ance to enable her to mako a career for.' herself, lles'poiidont wrote to liim stating that her feelings would nevei bo the' same for- him, and ho felt that a crisis had arisen, and placed tho matter in the hands of his solicitors. 11cspondent loft in.May, 1911, and went to Auckland and Sydney. ShiV later' wrote to. petitioner, stating that sho had received an engagement witli Williamson's "Ben Hur" Company. Petitioner had been making respondent an' allowance, but 110 marital relations had existed, between them since tho estrangement in 1909. Mr. Atkinson handed in correspondence between tho parties to show th.lt they had given up living as man and wife. .-'■■/ His Honour reserved: his decision, to allow him .-to' go into' tho correspondence. A petition for alimony was also reserved. • ■ • 1 ' . ■ I

Allan W. T. Hamilton (Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie) applied for divorce from Ruby \Y. Hamilton, Sydney Lov.ick being joined as co-respondent. Petitioner in evidenco said that from tho date of their marriage (February 23, 1906) ho lived with respondent 1 in Auckland. In May, 1912, : she left for England, and coming back she met the co-respondent. Petitioner continued /to live with the respondent till March 24, when he received a letter from her. Ho had not seen his wife since. /Corroborative evidence having been given, His Honour granted a decree nisi to bo made absolute in three months. Costs were allowed against the co-respondent, and custody of tho children" was granted to petitioner. An application for divorce on ' tho grounds of desertion for five years was made oy Charlottlo Couzens,. represent-1 h.v Mr. T. M. ( Wilford, against Ernest R, Uiizons. Petitioner said that ™/as married to respondent in May ■/'™ a " d , I .' rod him in Feildin" and Bleinheim. Respondent was a cattlo buyer, and in December, 1907, he disappeared. l'btitioner had since supported herself as a dressmaker. Respondent had been traced to California A decreo nisi, to be made absolute in three months was granted. ■ Custody ol the. one child ,ivas granted to the mother, with costW on the highest scalo. bamuel.R Y nice, represented by Mr. i T sought divorce.' from Ann Jean Vince. on "tho grounds of adultery. Tbos/H. Fern was added °s co-respondent. Tho marriage took place lived ritl l a " d Petitioner lived with his wife in Welln.gtni" Jn 3912 respon l-irt admitted cohabiting with co-rosnondenf who was a lodger. Petitioner then left! and respondent and co-respondent bid since lived together. Evidence of citation was given, and a decree iHi !■,, granted to be made absoTte in thleo months. Costs on the lowest scale were allowed onanist co-respondent. Mr'Vv C w^ SP , ri " & represented by Mi. 1 M. Milford, applied for a divorce from George A. Osspring, on the pounds of habitual drunkenness mil habitual cruelty. Petitioner Stated that she was.married in January, 1903 Respondent drank before his marriage and about a year after tho marriage he became an habitual drunkard. p e titurner had taken him from hotels on many occasions. A prohibition order was taken out against him, but it had no effect. Respondent had been a steward on tho coastal boats, but had lost position after position. Petitioner kept a boardinghouse, and had maintained herself and her children. Respondent had repeatedly struck her and had threatened her life. . After other evidenco had been given, His Honour granted a decreo nisi, to be made, absolute in three months, with custody of the children. An order for costs was made.

An application for divorce, on tho grounds of desertion, was made by Wm. Ernest Mill, represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, against Beatrice Jessio Mill. Mr. O'Leary stated that it was a casg in winch tho petitioner was resident in New Zealand, and was making the application against his wife, who resided in Melbourne. She had never lived in New Zealand. The parties were married in Melbourne, in 1900. They lived together in Melbourne till 190G, when respondent left home. In August, 1f,07. petitioner came to Wellington, and had resided berc since. Prior to his leaving Melbourne, he paid his wife maintenance for their children. On some occasions she threw the money in his face. After hearing the evidence, His Honour said (hat it was difficult to say which party .'was responsible for the desertion. The application was adjourned, to be

brought on at tlio first opportunity. "Ho was a spiritualist/' said Jlary Ann Thew, referring to Hugh B. Thew, from whom she sought dissolution of marriage, on the grounds of desertion. I etitioner was represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford. Slip stated that she was married in June, 1884, and resided with respondent till 1909, when he left. Petitioner further stated that she had never heard from respondent from the date or Ins departure. She was supporting the children. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was dren ' c ' llstot,y of tlle infant chilElizabeth Saville, a' middle-aged woman represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford sought dissolution of marriage from Benjamin Saville, on the grounds of desertion. Petitioner stated that sho was married to respondent in 1895. Some time after the marriage they went to ijouth Africa, where respondent got into trouble, and had_ to serve a sentence of U months imprisonment. He came to petitioner after that, and sho wont to isloemfontein, while respondent worked oil tho mines at Johannesburg as a carpenter. He visited petitioner at Bloemtontein, and it was always his intention to returi} to New Zealand. Six jears ago he gave petitioner her passage money, and sent her back to New Zealand. He promised to follow soon after, but since then she had not heard from him. lhe case was adjourned to allow , 3 fionour to consider the question of domicile of the respondent. Married in January, 1908, and deserteel in July of tho same year was tlio ground on which Grace Isabel M'Leod, represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford, applied for divor.ee from Wm. Jas. M'Leod, a commercial traveller. Petitioner stated that the marriage took place in Christchurcli. 11l July she had to go to tho hospital, and it was during the time that she was there that respondent disappeared. Sho had tried to trace him, but had failed. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted. George; Mason (Mr. T. M. Wilford) sought divorce from Annie Mason, on the ground of adultery. An order was granted petitioner, doing away with the necessity of naming a co-respondent. 1 etitioner, a stonemason, stated that ldni ma ™ a 8 e teok place in Scotland in iaJl. After coming: to New Zealand he had occasion to visit Sydney in connection with a contract with the Federal Oovernnient. He came back to find his wile leading a dissolute life. Police evidence as to respondent's mode of life was given, and a decree nisi, to be made absolute iu three months, was granted. David M'Farlane, a trimmer, with the Oear Company, represented by Mr. T. JJ-Wilford, sought divorce from Mary AI Farlane, on the grounds of desertion. 1 etitioner stated that lie married respondent in 1901. Respondent deserted him about oleven years ago. There were no and petitioner thought that this was a source of trouble to his wife. She had never sought maintenance from him. Petitioner explained that tho- delay in tho proceedings was due to want of means, caused by ill-health. A decree nisi was granted. Henry Edward Saycrs, a'labourer (Mr. T. \oung), was granted a decree" nisi from Mary EJlen Sayers, with Stephen Dempsey joined as co-respondent, on the grounds of adultery. Coots against the co-respondent on the lowest scale were granted. A decree nisi was granted to Isabel M. Taylor, a'■younc; woman, who was married in 1912 to tho respondent, [Percy Taylor. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the petitioner, and certain reasons were advanced in support of the application. An interim order for the custody of the child, in favour of the mother, was granted. Costs'on the lowest scale were ordered. Grounds wore advanced bv Mr. T. M. Wilford, similar to those given in another case, in support of tho application foil divorce made by Eliza Thorpe against Walter J. Thorpe. A decree nisi, to bo made absolute in three months,, was granted.