LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2544, 19 August 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

— » SUPREME COURT THE DIVORCE LIST Undofoiidcd divorco cases wero heard at Hio Supreme Court yesterday before His Honour the Chief Justice -(Sir Robert Stout), and a decree nisi was grantod in oight applications. INGERTON V. INGBR'i'ON. Tlios. Ingerton (Mr. T. Young) sought a dissolution of his marriage with Mary Engerfx)]), Charles Toy being named as co-respondent. The marriage took place at Petono in 1903, and thcro wero three children. In 1913 respondent ooinraenced to drink, and left petitioner. She subsequently _ lived with co-respondent. A decreo nisi was gi'anted with costs against . co-respondent. M'MASTER V. M'MASTEE. Isabella M'Master (Mr. P. J. applie<l for divorce from Hugh M'Master, ilrnilc anu iailure to support being tho • grounds advanced. The parties married at Kiipiaxa 111 1904, and they subsequently lived in Reefton and Wellington. There was one child. Since 1910 respondent had not supported petitioner. A, decree nisi was Kiuuted. Mr. O'Eegan said that ho did nofc think it was finy. uso asking for costs, as respondent had gone to Sydney. CUTLER V. CUTLEE, Clarice Norah Cutler (Mr. T. M. Wilfonl) sought dissolutioa of marriage from Alfred Cutler, whom she married m 1903 in Auckland They lived in Auckland,' JNapior, and Chnstchurch, and there was one child. Bespondent would not work, and. he loft petitioner fivo years last November. She bad not- since heard from him. A decree nisi was granted, with costs. M'DONALD V. M'DONALD. ; Kathleen M'Donald (Mr. T. M. Wilford) for divorce from George M'Donald. The marriage took place in nu ;. and the parties resided in Wanganui, laihape, Huntly, and . Auckland, there was .one child 1 . Eespondent had been five times m gaol since the marliago, mostly for forgery and false pretences. He was now released on' probation. Respondent had supported herself and child during the past five years. A decree nisi was granted, custody of tho m l Mother till further orders, u>sts -\verp allowed against respondent. KITTELTY V. KITTELTY. 'Grace Mary Kittelty (Mr. T. M. WilWrd), sought divorce from Henrv James Jiittelty. The marriage took place in Roeftou in 1891. _ There wero three children, tho - two girls being now married. Respondent left petitioner six years ago. and since then she had had no maintenance from him. A decree nisi, with costs, was granted. ' JUPP V. JUPP. Alice Jupp (Mr. 0. C. Mazengart) sought divorce from Edward Frederick Rancie Jupp. The marriage took place in 1901, and the parties lived in Ngaio and' Wellington. There wero two chilone since deceased. Respondent left petitioner seven years ago. She believed he left with,another woman. Petitioner nad maintained herself, since the desertion. A decree nisi was granted, with custody of the child, and costs. BRADLEY V. BRADLEY. Martha Sarah Jane Bradley (Mr. Atkinson) sought divorce from George Henry Bradley. The marriage took place in 1905. and tho parties lived in Wellington. There wero two children. Respondent had been systematically cruel to her, and he wns addicted to drink. Thero was a maintenance'order against him to support the children, but he did not live with or mipport the petitioner. A decree nisi was granted, with custody of tho children, and costs against respondent. . : BRENNAN S V. BRENNAN. Grace Helen Brennan (Mr. T. M. Wilford) sought divorce from Frederick Martin Brennan. An order of separation had previously been made, on tho grounds of cruelty, and adultery • was advanced in support of the divorce application. Th& ' marriage took place in Palmerston South 1 in 1906, and the parties lived in Christ- 1 church, Dunedin, and Wellington. There 1 was one child. Mr. -HT;. F. O Leary said E that he had been instructed by the re- ' spondent to file a' defence.' Tlie defeneo ' was a denial of the allegations of adul- ' tery. Eespondent had been a ship's elec. trician ,and should have returned here f from England in June. Ho had not since 1 communicated with Mr. O'Leary. A decree nisi was granted, the child to re- 1 main in the custody of the mother. Costs wore allowed. CASES ADJOURNED. The petition of Mabel Carnngton Hutcheson v. William Gordon Hutcheson was adjourned sine die, to allow evidence to be taken in Auckland. Several petitions were adjourned till Saturday. <