SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3105, 8 June 1917, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

IN DIVORCE UNDEFENDED CASES Sis Bonoiif Mr, Justice Bosking hcaM a number of undefended divorcc caEeo in ths Supremo Court yesterday. | Lucy Ada Maguiro sought, on groundß of. desertion and failuro to maintain, o> \ dissolution of her marriage with William J Arthur Louis Maguire. The parties wero 1 married on May 31, 1893, when petitioner was seventeen, .and they wero separated by order of the Court in 1900. .Respondent | had not supported petitioner or the children since, and petitioner knew nothing of his whereabouts. His Honour granlod a decree nisi, be made absolute in three months. Respondent was ordered to pay costs, £15, and disbursements. Mary Barclay, who was married in February { 1901. to John Barclay, carpenter and joiner, alleged that the latter dcBerted her-on December 21, 1906. Tho parties wero then residing in George Street, Dunedin. Petitioner had no idea why hor husband should hove left her. He simply "went to work" in "the morning, and never came back. A decree nisi was granted.. Leonard Isitt Wliiteside stated that his wife,. Beatrice Fjthel Whiteside, left homo unexpectedly in Fobruary, 1911. while :he was off on a railway journey. He did not know become of her; but. he had kept the homo going in caso she should come back. The only ohild of the mar : riage lived with petitioner. A decree nisi was granted. . Frederick Keating said ho married Catherine Keating on January 12,1899. Tho couple lived at Auckland, and in 1901-tho wife left home. Petitioner was of opinion that she had too much idlo time, and too much •money to-spend. That we© the only reason he could assign for her desertion. He "was accustomed to give her all his wages. He found her some years later working as a barihaid. She said she preferred that occupation to her married life. His Honour granted * a'decree nisi. Margaret Weaver, married to Thomas Weaver, on May 23, '1906, alleged that the latter went to livo with another woman whilo petitioner was staying in Sydney for her health. The evidence having established -the adultery, His Honour ;made a decree ni6i. . Olaricc Swinburne alleged, that her husband, Howard Francis Swinburne, deserted hor and failed ,-to maintain either her or her two children. Respondent was 18 years of ago when ho married petitioner. Ho was then a dentist's assistant, receiving £3 per week. Petitioner said that &he obtained a separation order in consequence of respondent's cruelty. Respondent had made no payments of maintenance under tho order. Petitioner was in business at Paeroa, and respondent had a dentist's practice at Petone. A decrce nisi, with interim custody of tho children, was granted petitioner. Hio Honour allowed her tho expenses of her journey from Paeroa. Desertion' was alleged a-s the grounds of Charles Wilson Bidley'6 suit for a divorce. from Elizabeth Ridley. Tho parties wero married in April, 1903, and it was in February, 1912, that respondent Asserted . petitioner. Petitioner had arranged.for his wife to have a trip to Melbourne. Ho saw her off m tho —, and never heard of her again. A decree nisi was granted. Gertrude Helen Evans , was granted a decree nisi against William Evans on grounds of desertion and failure to maintain. It wao stated that at tho time proceedings wero -started, respondent was employed in a Bhop ip Manners Streot. Susan Leslie stated that her husband. John William Leslie, had deserted and failed to maintain. hor. There wero four children, who were born at PalmerGton North. Potitione'r had to. support herself and the children. A clerk of j-h© Magistrate's Court gavo e v id cnco that respondent had. been • sent to gaol on several occasiona for disobeying a, maintenance order. A decrco nisi "was mado. Catherine Agnes Stonlcy sought, a dissolution of hor marria-go with John William Stonley, on grounds of desertion. She said that respondent becamo the j father of . an illegitimato child shortly after his marriage. An order for its maintenance was made against him, and he disappeared. Petitioner was not in good health, and had difficulty in maintaining herself, A decree nifi was made. Herbert Farmer said that, six weeks a.ftor his marriage at Wellington with Ohristina Farmer, she left him for ouo John Gorham. Petitioner saw her several timos in the street with Gorham', y.ud was present when she aDd tho co-respondent wero served with tho oitation papers at a house in Taranakl Street-, where thoy Jived together. t A dccrco nisi was granted, with costs against co-respondent. Kate Harriett Thomas charged Gharlcs Alexander Daniel Thomae with having committed adultery at Wellington with ; some person unknown. His Honour heard evidence a.nd granted a. decree nisi. James Gowing Godwin, wool-buyer, al- : leged that his wife,. Christina Godwin,, oommltted adnJtery at. Wellington with one Percy Munro, second engineer on ■ H.M.S. • —. A. decree nisi was grautI rd. Co-respondent was ordered to pay tho I coqU,

Florcnco Maudo Hoxverdo-w Brown w'ua with. fluotJior woman for somo f irrto. Ilia 1 Scented a. dccreo nisi in lior suit against. ;erbert Patrick Flovrcrdow Brovrn, on grounds of adtiltory. It appeared that respondent at tUo timo of the _ adultery ■was temporarily 0,8 private retary to Dr. VolintJnc. H© T?cnt to livo Honour granted a dccrco nisi, Gilbert Gardener SUwart proceeded agalnflt Oatherino Mary Stuart and Euataoa Burton, allcginff adultery. He stated, that his wlfo -was addictcd to drink. 6ho loffc him after somo years of married life, and had Binoe been living -with, tho corespondent at Pctono. A decrce nisi- wag granted, and tho co-rcsDondcnt was ordered to pay tho oosto. ElUa Flotolier charged lier liUßband, Robert Fletcher, with desertion. Tho parties Trero married in December, 1895, and respondent deserted petitioner 12 years Ho -WO.G addicted to drink. A-decree nisi ■was mado. Esther Oorr sought a, divorce on grounds ol" desertion aad failure to maintain. Sho atafced that her :hueband, 3fatthew Garr, ■was BJi lxalDitual drunkard, and that this fact tad caused lier to seek a separation order. An order -was granted under which, respondent was to pay 3Ds, per week to maintain petitioner and her child. Respondent laiUd to make tho payments required. A decree nisi -was granted. I Amy Cooke stated that sho was married in England to Arthur Edwin Cooke, i The latter emigrated to New Zealand, and ■when petitioner followed como time after she found that he • was living with another woman. Petitioner liad no means of supporting herself, bub respondent had been paying her an allowance, and had expressed his intention to continue his payments. Tho Court made a decree nisi, and an interim order for alimony *t tho rate of .-£1 per "week.

Tin by Mabel Bell alleged tha.t her husband, Georße William Sidney Bell, admitted to lier that he freouented houses of 111-fame. Other evidence of idmtlax. admissions wa-s given for petitioner. The case "was adjourned in order that confirmative evidence might, if possible, bo obtained. His Honour said ho wished to a.void making a decree merely upon respondent's own admissions. Part of the evidence in the next, case, Ethel Whitfield v. Angus' William Crce Whitfield, had been taken on commission in Melbourne. It was a suit brought on grounds of adultery. After hearing petitioner, His Honour adjourned the caso till i-0-de.y, when he will have read, tho ,ovidenco given in Melbourne, ABOUT T~RACEHORSE • A CLAIM .DISALLOWED. In the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman heard a ease concerning tho ownership of tho racchorse Waimatao. The plaintiff "was James H'Laughlin, of Trentham, horse-trainer, and the defendant Joseph. Grant, of Manakau, farmer. Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for plaintiff. and ,Mr. M. Myers for defendant. It was alleged by plaintiff that' by an agreement entered into on February 8 last, in consideration of a payment of £1. defendant placed under offer to him until 5 p.m; on February 13 tho racehoreo for a sum of £525. Defendant afltacd tho signature of 11. Williams to the memorandum, and • plaintiff understood that to bo defendant's turf name. Plaintiff accepted defendant's offer by telcirain on February 13. and tendered tho purchase money, but defendant neglected to carry oat the arrangement. Tho Court was therefore asked to order the specific performance of the agreement, and to award plaintiff £500 amount of evidence on cither side was heard. Hiß Honour, in giving judgment,, said that if anv action lay against Grant it was for a breach of warranty. The evidence that ho had. no authority to sell and that tho horse belonged to Williams ■was all ono way. He felt inclined to hclicve tho evidence of Williams, and ho roul'd not find that thcro was nroof or fraud in the preparation or a document and perjury. If tho cvidenco or tho dpfctico was true, * Graut had overstepped his authority, and His Honour could iiot find, for plaintiff in tho face of the cvidonee, which had been given. Judgment would be for defendant, Tritn. costs.