SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 62, 7 December 1918, Page 12

SUPREME COURT

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Justice Hosking yesterday heard a number of undefended divorce cases. .The first case was one in which, upon the- ground of desertion, iDinah Cross t'M'r. Jackson) sought a divorce from Horace Montague Cross. . Petitioner stated that respondent was a commercial traveller,- and. there wero no children of the marriage, which took place in February, l<lo7. In May, 1012, ier husband left here 'supposedly to go to Auckland.. She, had never .heard «f him since, but-it was believed he had gone to Sydney on account of financial difficulties , with his employers. No maintenance had been received from him, and petitioner had supported herself. Further evidence adduced that respondent had never provided a home and corroborated the evidence in regard to, petitioner's self-support. # A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months. Costs amounting to ,£ls.and disbursements were allowed. A husband's petition on the' ground of adultery was heard in the case of Frnser, petitioner (Mr. H.F. O'Lsnry), and Cecilia Maude Fraser, respondent. Petitioner stated that there were two children of his marriage with respondent in December, 1908. In April, 1916, he went on active service, and returned in March of the' present year. During-Hint time his wife was well provided for. About June 7io made certain discoveries, and taxed his wife with misconduct. She made a confession in writiugA After these happenings he had to seek lodgings elsewhere, as the house was taken in his, wife's name. . His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute. Gosts amounting to £)() 10;. ami disbursements were allowed the respondent. ' Drunkenness and cruelty were- the grounds alleged in a petition by Jans M'Phee for dissolution of her marriage with Norman M'Phee. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for petitioner; Petitioner declared that their marriage tonic place at Timaru in May, 1886. Four, children of their marriage were all of age.' About twenty-six years ago they came, to live in Wellington, and during the last years she had to keep herself with the help of heri children. I Her husband had drunk heavily all that time. She last saw him six years ago, when he aslted for rcoafty. She had not seen or heard of him for six' years. His Honour said that evidence did j not prove the case sat out in the claim! If a. case of desertion had been set out there would be no difficulty. No evidence affecting the last four years liad been given, and he could not act.upon it. Mr. Jackson urged that he could prove drunkenness upwards of four years, and that might, suffice. His Honour said he could not act upon the evidence, and advised- counsel to serve an amended petition on .the ground of desertion. In the meantime he would hear what evidence there was. Petitioner then proceeded to,give details'of the'alleged cruelty,, which' became so bad that she had to leave respondent. Since, then • she had received.; no support from him,'nor had she asked' for it. Evidence was given in support of the petition by petitioner's .daughters. Mr. Jackson again urged His Honour to act on the evidence,. and .make a simple amendment to the petition by striking out the-word "last" .in the 1 clause relating, to habitual drunkenness, ■ Sufficient evidence had been given in relation to four i years prior to the time petitioner left respondent. His Honour intimated' that he would consult the other Judges on the matter and give his decision later. A soldier's wife, Emily Jane Jl'Coy (Mr. O'Leary) sought a divorce from "William Al'C'oy on the ground A misconduct. Petitioner snid that her' husband returned to New Zealand in 1916 after service with the Main Body. He'had left again for the front. She opened, as usually she did, a, letter addressed to her husband. As it result of what she road she came to. Wellington a*iid interviewed a young woman who was then Petitioner was sure the wninn did not know her husband was married. Respondent had written to her from Egypt, admitting misconduct and asking forgiveness. As a result of proceedings by the woman in the Magistrate's Court respondent had.been ordered to pay maintenance, as .the putative father of her child. ..Anotfher child had been since adopted. -Petitioner had offered to take her liusbaad back, but as he would not. reform she found it impossible to live ;with him. . , ' An order nisi was granted, with costs .£ls and disbursements. Eva Phoebe Groves (Mr. O'Leary) sought dissolution of her marriage with Charles William Groves on the ground o'f misconduct. .- . ' "" Her busbiind had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for bigamv in July, 1918. They had only' lived together for three weeks after marriage in July, 1915. . . ■.■■':■ A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three nionths, was granted. Costs, ,£ls, and disbursements were allowed. * Habitual drunkenness was the ground upon which Emnu-'M'Gill sought dissolution of har marriage with Daniel M'Gill, an engineer in the Government workshops. . ' Petitioner, for whom Mr. P. Jackson appeared, 'stated that She married respocdent in December, 1902. There were two. children of the marriage. M'Gill had been drinking habitually for same : yenTs, and had' treated her "cruelly on several occasions. There had 'been no cohabitation for eight-years, respondent refusing to'live with heft had lived in the same house until respondent was transferred from Petone to Cross Creek a few months ago. She received alimony up to £2 10s. on an order by Court. Further- evidence in relation to respondent's habits was given by a r.cighbo'ur of the parties, who stated that she had to look after petitioner on one occasion as a result .of respondent's illtreatment. Evidence was also given by petitioner's sister. His Honour said hp would reserve his decision until Monday. He would have to consider the question of condonation, 83. the parties had lived in tho snme house right up till respondent's transference Peculiar circumstances held in. a suit for annulment' of a marriage which had been a bigamous one. The, parties seeking fhe annulment were Ada Bosina Stokes and- George Cecil W. GoocK. The parties hod been respondent and, corespondent respectively in a .'iv'orce suit in which .'Arthur AT. Stokes was the petitioner.' They had gone through a form of marriage,' and each had been fined for bigamy. The parties had lived together for some years as -man and wife. They wished' to be legally married, but the Court wonld have to order an annulment of the former marriage before they could do so. His Honour made an order, accordingly.