DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 285, 21 August 1918, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT

REE V. RULE

111 the Divorce Court yesterday, liofnro His Honour Mr. Justice taking and a jurv of twelve, tlio hearing ot Hie ciiao of ALsiry Kuls v. William Henry hit to, a petition for .dissolution of marriage on the grounds of habitual drunkenness and failing to maintain, was continued. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared tor the petitioner, and Mr. T. V. Hislop lor tho respondent. The case for the petitioner was concluded tho previous evening. Mr. Hislop, for tlie respondent, briefly addressed the jury, and said that tlieso domestic quarrels often led to a great many false statements being made. Ho contended that it was somewhat singular that tlie evidence given lor tlie petitioner was practically confined to tho mum hers of the family. It wns strange that it tho respondent had been addicted to drink and was an habitual drunkard that no outsiders except tho members of tho family had been called to testify to this. Mr. Hislop, continuing, said lie would call evidence'to show that those who had known the respondent for 30 7**™ or more had not known him to be a drunk Fmlerick William Munn, shunter, said ho had known the respondent for about six years, and had been a visitor at tho house. During the six years he had never seen him .under the influence of liquor.;- . John Dinneen, probation oluccr in tns Juvelino Court, said lio knew respondent ( for about 3!) years. He hail never seen | him tho worse for liquor, Witness had never suspected him of taking liqisnr. Despondent had told him that he was m'ing unliappiiy with his wife. John le Hera, butcher, said he hafl known Ibo respondent from 1910, and had never seen him intoxicated. 'Ihey were working at the same butchery, and oilen went home together, as thoy lived :n the same direction. Ho left tiie butchery because of illness. William Ileury Me, the respondent, said he was (iO years of age. He denied absolutely the allegations of cruelly anil bad language made by the mombcrs or the family in their evidence. He bad been served with a suinniofls lot' n. prohibition order by his wife. This was issued when she was in one of her tirades of temper, but it was withdrawn. Ho had chastised one of his children for stealing fowls, but hud ncer ..eon RUilty of cruelty to li'is. wffe. When ho was earning 565. a week lie gave his wife dis. Ho had be.'ii troubled with insomnia lor twelve months, and was out of employment for two months. That was lorn vears ago. For six years his wife had acted as agent at Brooklyn for a- newspaper. Four of the boys were earning money. He was not told what thmi wages were. He was with tho L'H'e bit" gade for five months; that was a job that would not permit, of drinking. Cross-examined, tlio irespoiident said that his children had been cocm'd giving evidence against hnv. _ !lo had j never used violence towards ;.;s wile. When he drank lie generally took beer, j He only had a'.whisky onci in wires, months! As a ru.le he h:ui but one drink ; at a time. He denied that i.c had ever been drunk. The only time he i;a<i been under the influenco of drink v.as nhen ho was single at .1 football socia.. Uu that occasion he took one or two glasses of champagne too much. The evidence given against him ho alleged amounted to wilful perjury. Ho was not 111 tho habit of using bad language. W. A. Grenfell, secretary of the Employers' Association, said lio liso foiowij tho respondent as youth and man, and had known liini to bo a good, hard work* ing fellow. He had never known him to than a sober, steidv man. Cross-examined, witness said he had never seen the respondent except during the daytime wji:\n at work, lie knew nothing tof his pvivato life. , Walteir Dinnie, private detective, said he had beer, engaged 'by the other side to watch tho respondent, lie had scon him on several occasions, both in Pctone and Wellington, and 110 was always sobor. Neil J3!air Austin, of tho .\)on Dining Rooms, said he had known the respondent for between 30 and 10 years, and had always known hi 111 to be n> sober man. James Nicholls, of I'etono, said lie had known the respondent ■ for many years, and ho had in the last two years had about five or six drinks with him. Ho had never seen him under the inlluenen of liquor. Alexander Smith, foreman of Hie >.nw Zealand Candle Company, said tho respondent had been in iiis employ for about two years, and had never known him to have been under Iho influence of liquor. Ho was always fit for his work. Arthur Warren, liftar at the Pctouo railway shops, said that he had known tlio respondent for about S5 years. He had visited tho houso ot' the Kiilav while they lived at Brooklyn. He had never once 1 known or heard of respondent having ibeen under tho influence of drink. Ho had.seen him during the last eighteen months three and four times a. week. John Kobson, of the Petone Railway Workshops, also gave evidence as to tho sobriety of the respondent. The jury retired at 3 p.m. ami returned at MO p.m. with a. verdict in favour of petitioner on all three issues submitted to t.lieni by His Honour, who granted a deoree nisi, to bo made absolute in three months, and costs wore allowed the petitioner on the lowest scale.

MARSHMEXT V. MAIiSHMENT. Alfred James Marshment prayed for a dissolution of his marriage witn Mary Ann Marshment, tho grounds being alleged misconduct with I'ranc Oriawski. Afr. A. \Y. Blair appeared for the petitioner and Mr. T. W. Jackson for tho respondent. In his slatcment the petitioner said he was a inolorman, and was married to tho respondent at Wellington 011 December 10, 1901. • There were two children of the marriage. Misconduct was alleged to have taken place between his wife and Franc Oriawski.

lir. Blair, in outlining the ease, said that Marshment had occasion to speak to his wife with respect to her fondness for other men. The respondent went to live at Wanganui, and later she went to live with Oriawski. Oriawski told .Mrs. Oriawski that ho had a preference for Airs. Marshment, and Mrs. Marshment told hcv husband precisely tho same thing. Alfred James Marshment, motorman, Wellington city tramways, said he had been in the tramway employ tor about nine years. After his marriage he continued to livu in Wellington, and there were two children. He lived happily with his wife for about three or four years, when her attitude towards him cliangcd, and ultimately there were Court proceedings, which proved futile. Later there were further Court proceedings, and iu January, 191G, they separated. Ho allowed his wife to have the children, and he paid 10s. a week each for the maintenance of Hie two children. His wife agreed to this, and went to work as a waitress. Later she went away to Wanganui, with the children, and after that he heard something which caused him to make inquiries. Cross-examined: The first Court proceedings were for separation, on the grounds of cruelty, and his wife failed ill her suit. The "proceedings 011 the second occasion were 011 the same grounds. He was wilJing lo agree lo a separation, but he did not admit; that: there was any cruelty. When he visited tlio children he never questioned them us to the conduct 01" their mother. Bert William Munn, private detective, gave evidence as lo the inquiries he made in Wanganui, acting upon instructions. He detailed what ho saw while watching Mrs. Mai'shnient nnd Oriawski. Mrs. Oriawski, wife of tlio co-respond-eul, gave evidence with respect lo her husband's intimacy with the respondent, nud refusing to give her up when requested to do so by the witness. The further hearing of the case will lie resumed at 10 o'clock this morning.