LAW REPORTS
SUPREME CODBT IN DIVORCE. UNDEFENDED PETITIONS Several undefended divorce cases wore dealt with by His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking in the Supreme Court yesterday. . Desertion and failure to maintain w,ere the grounds on which Olive Elizabeth Taylor sought divorce from Alfred Taylor. Mr. T. M. Wilford, who ap* peared for the petitioner, called evidence to show that the parties wore married in -Wellington en March 1 , 5, 1904, and lived together in this City until August of that year. ,The respondent then left his wife and had not since contributed' anything towards her There was one child of the marriage. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. The petitioner was awarded costs on the. lowest scale and granted interim custody of the child. Maud Mary Ann Stuart prayed for dissolution of her marriage with Angus John' Stuart on the of desertion and failure to maintain. Mr. W. F. Ward appeared for the petitioner. It appeared from the petitioner's evidence that the parties were married in Wellington on November 7, 1899, and lived together for' about three years, the union resulting in one child. • A separation order was made against respondent about 1903, on the ground of habitual drunkenness, and he was ordered to pay 15s. per week towards the maintenance of his wife. He failed to keep up the payments and subsequently disappeared from the Dominion, A decree nisi was granted, with costs on. the lowest scale, against the respondent. Petitioner was granted interim custody of the child. In the case of Arthur Edward Ridding v. Mabel Blanche Bidding, the petition for divorce was filed on the ground of desertion. The parties were married in Sydney on March 8, 1892, and subsequently lived together at Sydney and Wellington until abont 1901. The respondent returned to Sydney for health' reasons, and'as she did not exhibit any intention of coming back to Wellington, the petitioner went to Sydney to see her about' 1906. He waß unable to induce her to. resume the old relations; and he afterwards heard that she was living with another man. After hearing corroborative evidence as to the desertion, his Honour adjourned thecase until February 19 to enable the marriage certificate to be produced. Mr. T. Young appeared for the petitioner. Mary Catherine Wilson, for whom Mn T. Neave appeared prayed that her marriage witlj Francis John Wilson might be dissolved because of the fact that her husband had deserted her and. failed to provide her with' maintenance since about the year 1905. The parties were married on January 1, 1900, at Perth, and after residing " there for some time came to New Zealand, the respondent' setting up in business as an architect in Palmerston North., According to the evidence of the ' petitioner, she bad been compelled to leave her husband on acconnt of his. being addicted to drink. She had had to maintain herself and the two children for the past ten years- His Honour granted the usual decree,, to be_ made absolute in three months, the petitioner being awarded costs on the lowest scale and interim enstody of the children. Olof Johnson, who was married on October 5, 1903, to, Lillian Johnson, Evod with his wife at Greymouth, Taihape, and Wellington until.about._three. years ago, and there-were five children of the marriage, three being, still alive For the past three years, Mrs. Johnson had been living in. Greymouth, where (according to the evidence) she was keeping bouse for a man, named William Clough,' a widower. When requested to return to her husband, Mrs. Johnson had .declined to do so, and her husband yesterday sought a divorce, alleging misconduct. His Honour was not satisfied that the evidence was sufficient' to .justify a decree being made, and the further hearinc was adjourned until February 19. Mr. H.F. O'Leary appeared for the petitioner. Desertion was the ground on which Ethel Hannah M'Naught petitioned for divorce from David Corson M'Naught, to whom she was married on March 31, 1902, at Dannovirke. Mr. D. Jickson, who appeared for the petitioner, led evidence to show that subsequent to the marriage the parties lived togetner in Wellington for a period of six years. Respondent then left for Sydney, and had not since supported his wife. He was now believed to be in Suva. - His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, the petitioner being allowed costs on the lowest scale. Misconduct was alleged in support of the petition of Susan Cameron v. Duncan Kennedy Cameron. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the petitioner, who stated that the marriage took p'aco in Wellington on June 20, 1903. The parties lived together in this city until February 4, 1914, when petitioner accused her husband of infidelity. . He. then left her, and there was an allegation of misconduct in December last. After hearing corroborative evidence, His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lowest scale. Mr. T, M. Wilford made' application for the case of Joseph Zacharian v. AdaZachariah to be heard in camera, /but His Honour refused the application. The-petitioner sought divorce on the. ground of constructive desertion, and tho petition was heard in open Court. The parties were married in Melbourne on November 4, 1896, and there were four children of the marriage, two being still alive. Respondent. had refused to_ cohabit with her husband for the past six years. After hearing evidence, His HoDour reserved decision. Wflhelmina Pedersen, represented by Mr. H. E. Evans, petitioned for divorce from Ole Nikolai Pedersen. The marriage took place on September 24, 1910, and the petition was based on habitual drunkenness and failure to maintain. His Honour intimated that he would give decision on February\l9. On the application of Mr. T. M. Wilford, leave was granted to mention the case of Mapplebeck V; Mapplebeck, and the case of Lynoh v, Lynch on February
WANGANUI SESSIONS
(By TelecraDli.-Presa Awoctottahl Wanganui, February 10. The Wanganui Supreme Court criminal sessions wero continued to-day, before Mr. Justice Cbapman. John Taloe, an elderly Russian Finn, employed as night-watchman in a timber yard,.pleaded not guilty to discharging a revolver at a drovor named Thomas Blinkhorn. The ovidenoo showed that Blinkhorn and three other drovers, under the influcnco of drink, visited tho timber yard and had an' altercation with tho nightwatchman, who fired a revolver, allegedly to frighten them away. . Tho jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of not" guilty. Tho . trial of Arthur Rottman for alleged murder at Ruauino takes place to-morrow. •'
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150211.2.77
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2382, 11 February 1915, Page 11
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,092LAW REPORTS Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2382, 11 February 1915, Page 11
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.