DIVORCE COURT
RETURNED SOLDIER'S PETITION £250 DAMAGES In tiie Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Jlr. Justice Hotking and a jury ol' twelve, the divorce case of Leonard Charles Utting v. Grace llepzibali Utting, respondent, was hoard, tne grounds of the application for the dissolution of marriage being misconduct with Harry U. Jlonorieff, who was named as the co-respondent, and I'sol damages was claimed.
Mr. 11. I'. O'Leary appeared for the appellant. The respondent and the corespondent were not represented by counsel.
Mr. Archibald Forte was foreman of the jury.
Jlr. O'Leary said that Uttting was at present in the post otlice at Jlasterton, but last year and the year beforo ho was on active service in Jlesopotamia from July, llllti, to December, 1917, as a wireless operator. Jlr. O'Leary pointed out that the case canio before tho jury because Ulting claimed damages, and it was for the jury to fix the amount of the damages, and ho thought that the jury ought to award substantial damages.
Leonard Charles TJtting, tho appellant, said lie was married to (he respondent at Auckland in July, 1908, and tliero was a child born in the following year. He left New Zealand in July, 1916, with the wireless section for Jlesopotamia. llis allowances to his wife amounted lo los. per week. He had for himself 2s. a day. When he returned to New Zealand lie heard (hat his wifo had not been behaving herself; he consequently went to Piilmerston North and called at a certain house. When his wife saw witness sho broke down. She admitted that she had lieen living with Jloncrielf as his wife. 116 later saw Moncrieff and I axed him with misconduct with Mrs. Utting. This he admitted, and said he was a bit ol i» cur, and thought he would have to foot the bill. Jloncrielf was a storenian at Palmerston North, but when lie was seen by witness his was a soldier on home-service attached to the Awapuni Camp. Ho had siuce seen Jloncrielf and Jlrs. Utting together. Witness said he 'had the child with him.
To His Honour witness said that cordial relations existed (between him and his wife before he left for the front.
His Honour briefly addressed the jury and pointed out that as reasonable men they would readily admit thnt; there had been misconduct.. On the question of damages, he stated that whore a man had not lived happily with his wife the jiwy might well think that the man was well rid of the woman without obtaining damages, but in this case the parties were living happily and the happy union was disturbed by another man, and tho damages in such a! case should bo something more. Damages were not given to punish, but to compensate for tho loss incut red.
The jury after a short retirement returned <a verdict in favour of the appellant, and .awarded him .£250 damages. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to !*> mado aibsolnte'in- three months, and ordered that the amount of tho damages u paid into court. Plaintiff was also awarded <£25 costs.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19180816.2.61
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 281, 16 August 1918, Page 8
Word count
Tapeke kupu
516DIVORCE COURT Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 281, 16 August 1918, Page 8
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.