PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 208, 28 May 1919, Page 3

PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE

«—,— TWELVE CASES DECIDED •. . His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Roben blout) presided in tho Divorce Court yesterday, and dealt with tho undetended divorce suits. CHOHCHBR V. CROUCHER, Edith Henriotta, Croucher sought a dissolution of her marriage with Martin Croucher on the grounds of misconduct. J-ha. Parties wore married on April 30, 1900, and thero were fivo children of tho marriage. . They had lived at AVaimate, clenhoim, Wellington, and Timaru. The respqndent went to the front, and on his return, the petitioner intercepted correspondence addressed to tho respondent at'his military address, and re-addressed by the military authorities to New Zealand. She wroto to him in respect to this correspondence, and received a reply whioh was produced.

Mr. J. Scott, who appeared for the petitioner, said that was all tho evidence ho could produce. His Honour: The rule is that there must, be corroborative evidence. ;If you can prove his handwriting that would be corroborative evidence.

This corroboration,having been given, His Honour granted a decreo nisi, to bo mado absolute in three months', and costs wore allowed tho. petitioner, who was also allowed ,63 per week for alimony until further orders. ' SMITH V. SMITB,' : Mr. A. H. Bamett appeared for Emily .Catherine Smith, who sought a dissolution of. her marriage with John-Smith on the grounds ol misconduct. The parties were married on March 28, 1902, and had lived at Wellington and In February, 1917, slio was in hospital, and on her discharge she wont to her home..but found that her husband had sold up the home,, and had taken, up with another woman. She had since maintained hersolf by office • .cleaning. Cqrroborativo evidence having been givon His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be inade ( absolute iff three months. '':•'" MORRIS V. MORIUS. Desertion was tho ground upon which Ellen Isabel Morris souglit a dissolution of'her marriage with James Morris, a bushmau. Mr. H. F.: O'Leary appeared for tho .petitioner. The parties were married on July lij. L 1903, and lived at various places. There! were two children of the marriage, wlio wero at present with their , grandparents. Petitioner had not lived with her husband since September, 1911, and had not seen him 6inco then. Corroborative evidence having been given His Honour granted a decree nisi, to. be made absolute in three months. ' JUDD V.JTJDD. '..

Halen Judd, for whom Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared, petitioned for a dissolution of her- marriage with Arthur Stanley Judd. The evidence given showed -that respondent . corespondent; in the divorce case of England v. Enghud, heard during 1 the last session of the 'Divorce Court/when the' petitioner was granted a decree nisi. Mr. and' Mrs. Judd were-married on November 13. .1901. and had lived-at various places. There were several children of tho marriage.. ; The petitioner had not lived with her' husband. for eight vears. Previous to November, 1917, her" husband was ■ in jßotorua,' and on his return she found a letter ,in his pocket, which was produced m the divorce, case of England v. England. Corroborative evidence was given by-Walter Dinnie,' private detective, and ■ His Honour granted' a decree nisi, to bo made absolute in three months. Costs;were allowed the petitioner, who was also given interim custody of the children. ..'■,;■ WIGG'V. WIGG. : Mr. H. P. O'Leary appeared for Elizabeth Wigg, who sought a dissolution of her marriage with Reuben Wigg on tho grounds of desertion. The parties wero married on January 31, 1599, and had lived at Marton, Taihape, Stratford, and H'aimea. There ,wero four children of the .marriage. In 1911, while living at Waimea.. petitioner parted from her hiis-. band in consequence .of a-disagreement with him; and t(.ok two children 1 with her. Shortly after leaving she'wrote, proposing to go back to, him, but lie replied, saying that ho would not have her nnck. Since then she had maintainedherself by domestic service. Corroborative ovidence was given, and a decree nisi'was granted, to be made absolute in threo months. -

BALDWIN V. BALDWIN. James Baldwin, driver, for whom Mr. H. F. O'Lenry appeared, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Angelina Baldwin on the ground' of misconduct. Iho parties were married on May 27, 1912. The petitioner was in camp at the date of the signing of the armistice, when he was discharged. He returned home and lived with his wife until a few waste ago. At that.time he repeived certain information,- and was handed a number of letters by a Mrs Thompson. The letters were written by the respondent, and disclosed misconduct'with Thompson.When taxed, she admitted the offence. Petitioner then left,her, and she went to her people. Corroborative evidence 'was Riven by Frances May Thompson, and His Honour granted a decreo iiisi, to be made absolute- in three months with costs against the co-respondent. OLDHAM V. OLDHAM. > Anna Caroline Oldham, for whom Mr. P. H. Putnam appeared, petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Oldham, on tlio grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruelty. The parties wero married on December 22; 1003, and •i U, i in prions' parts of Wellington,. There were four children rf the marriage. According to the evidence the respondent started drinking in 1912, but always drank at home. He used to bring home a gallon of beer Piactieally every .evening, and as a consequence of this the petitioner had been cruellv lil-treated on several occasions, details of which were given in evidence oy tno petitioner. In 191? a. separation order was obtained by Mrs. Oldham on the grounds of drunkenness and cruelty, and 30s. per week maintenance was awarded, but .the paymonts wero very much in-arrear, Evidence was ■ also' given by the son of the petitioner' and a decree nisi was'granted,'to bo made absolute in three months, with costs attainst the'respondent. TOWNEND V. TOWNEND.

Mr- H--F. OLeary appeared for Renmo Alberta Townend, who Bought a (lis; solution of her marriage with Frank J'redonck Townend on the grounds of. misconduct. The parties were married in 1913. and lived in Canterbury Syd- ' "^-a 1 "! Wellington, and there was\rmo *~onild of tho marriage: Petition- ■ er, according to tho evidence, loft nor husband about three years ago, and : later she obtained au order for the maintenance of the child. Frederick Wil- - ham Lane said that he took proceedings against his wifo for divorce on the ground of misconduct with Townend, . hut abandoned the proceedings mid took his wife back. Later ha went into camp, and when ho, came out he discovered ' t that his wife wus living with Townond. i ,She had lived with Townend in Nelson Street. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to bo made absolute in three months, with costs against the respond- / ent. ,• ■ • . LAUE V. LAUE. Frederick William Laue, hairdresser, / who was represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Matilda laue, on the ■ ground of misconduct with the respond- ( out in-the case of Townend v. Townend. The parties wero married on September 22. 1913. The petitioner's evidence was similar to that given in the previous case, - and there being corroboration of his statements, a decrno nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months, with costs against the co-respondent. ItIOEDEN Fanny Laura Riorden, represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, sought a dissolution of her marriage witli Timothy James Riorden on the grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruolty. The evidence disclosed that the parties were married eight years ago, tne re- - ipondent being a fireman on the railway. The* petitioner lived with her husband ntil about four years ago, when she ■as obliged to leave him because-of his

drunken habits aud cruelly. Ho finally lost his .job beoiuise of his drunken liabita. Corroborative evidonco was furnished, and «, decree nisi was granted, to ho made absolute in three mouths. This| petitioner was allowed costs. NIXON V. NIXON. Misconduct was the ground of tho petition of Charles butler Nixon for tho dissolution of his marriage with Maria Jano Nixon. Mr. 11. F. O'Leary appeared for tho petitioner. It was stated that the parties wore married on August, 12, 1908. Tho 'petitioner went to tho front, and was away for ibout threo years. His wife was well orovided for, in his allotment money. Before returning to New Zealand he had been told that his wife had had her allotments stopped because of her mode of living. He returned to New Zealand in October, 1918, and he was introduced by his wife to a man named Murray, who was supposed to bo a boarder. Later on he discovered that bis wife had misconducted herself with tho alleged hoarder. 'He charged his wife' with the offence.-and she admitted it. Murray had since been convicted of stealing the petitioner's kit of tools. After evidence in corrobo'ration had been given His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in thveo months.

WOOLLEY V. WOOLLET. Desertion was the ground of the petition of Edward John Woolley for dissolution of his marriage with Jano Caroline Woolley. Mr. John Scott appeared for the petitioner. The parties were married in Australia in April, 1885. and lived in various parts" of Queensland and in Wellington. According to the evidence the petitioner, who is a carpenter, had occasion to go to the country, and at that timo he was living in. a Government worker's home. Ho had to return to Wellington and take possession of the house because his wife had left the place. This ,was on October 1, 1912, aud his wife had not since returned to him, although he had made repeated requests for Jier to do so. Evidence waa called to show that there was no possibility of the parties coming together. A decreo :visi was granted, to ,be mado absolute in three nionths.