DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 284, 20 August 1918, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT

RULE V. RULE

ALLEGED DRUNKENNESS AND CRUELTY In the Divorce Court yesterday morning, before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve, the case of Mary Rulo v. William Henry Rule, a petition for dissolution of- marriage, was to havo been heard, but there was considerable delay owing to the absence of Mr. T. Hislop, who was to have appeared for the respondent. Mr. Hislop attended, and explained that he knew nothing of the case having be?n fixed for that day. He was not present in May last when the case was adjourned to the present sitting, and he was surprised ' that he had not been informed of tho matter by counsel (Air. P. W. Jackson) for the petitioner. Ho apologised to tho Court, but Ilis Honour said that tho apolo*y was due to tho jury, who had been kept waiting some time. M¥. Hislop said he was not prepared to go on then. lli.s Honour pointed out that the case had been fixed for that day, and jury cases were fixed for every day in the week. Witnesses were in attendance, and his client would have to pay the costs of the day.. Mr. Jackson explained the position as' to tho petitioner, and said he was ready lo go on. He had witnesses from Fox-

ton anil other places. The action came before His Honour in May last, when the Court made an order for security of costs, and lie (counsel) was told that tho respondent could not. and would not, find the costs.

His Honour desired to fix the hearing for 2 p.m., and Mr. Hislop said he would endeavour to get into communication with his client. His Honour thought that the respondent should pay tho costs of the day. Mr. Jackson protested against Mr. Hislop's statement that he (Mr. Jackson) should have communicated with him as to the fixture.

His Honour: I do not wish to hear anything on that point. I hold Mr. Hislop (o be at fault. Eventually, His Honour decided to take the ease at 2 p.m. t On the Court resinning in the afternoon the ease proceeded. *■ Mr. .IV W. Jackson, in addressing tho jury, said the grounds of tho petition were habitual drunkenness and cruelly and failing to maintain petitioner and her children. There were eleven cl.ilclrcn of the mariiage. The parties had been separated since Novembe?, 1916. Mary Rule, the petitioner, said slio was married to William Henry Rule on July 14, 1892, at Oainaru, when her husband was a journeyman butcher. She had eleven children. Tliay /came 'to Wellington about sixteen years ago, ana lived for some time at Brooklyn, slio then had' seven children. Her husband always drank, but' in recent years ho had become aii habitual drunkard. Ho had come home as many as six nights in the week quite drunk. She had to take in sewing, and her' children had to workselling papers and help in delivering milk to earn a little money. She got little or nothing from her husband for the support of herself and children, lhey went to livo at Petono three, yeafs agu.\ When ho cama home drunk ho very often thrashed tlio witness and p.lso the children.

Several other witnesses were called, ineluding two of the elder children of tho parties, who gave corroborative evidence.

This closed tho caso for tho petitioner, and His Honour then adjourned the further hearing until 9.30 o'clock this morn 1 - ifig.