DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, 14 August 1919, Page 9

DIVORCE COURT

_ >— FOX V. FOX DECISION DEFERRED In tho Divorce t'oiU't yesterday., before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards, Lillian Eliza Fox, for whom Mr. P. W. Jackeon appeared, sought a dissolution of her niarriago with William Janus Fox on tho grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruelty. ' . The case was to have been defended, but at the last moment, the defence was abandoned, and there was no appearance of the respondent. I 'The parties were married on January 2, 1907, at St. Saviour's Church, Lyttelton, and lived at Lyttolton, Clinslchurch, and "Wellington, and there -wore four children of tho marriage. It was alleged that from 1909 doVn to 1917, the I respondent had been a habitual drmikanl, and had habitually left tho pcti--1 tioiier without means of support and had been habitually guilty of cruelty to the petitioner by using abusive, offensive,and tlireareiiiiiff language, and beating her. Petitioner asked for tho custody of tho children. The petitioner, in her evidence, said her husband was a clerk, and hvo years after niarriago commenced drinking. He could net keen any of his position;! because of his drinking habits. When her husband was out of work he left the south and went to Hnwke's 'Bay to try and Ret work, and left petitioner _in Cliristchurch without a home and •without means of support. Petitioner then camo to Wellington nnd lived with her eistor. Respondent joined her later and obtained work in tho Defence Department, but he was unable to hold his position because he was drinking lienvilj\ He cruelly illtreated her in Welliiigton. Tho respondent went to tho front in June, 1017, and returned- last May. The petitioner had not lived with him since* he went, to tho war. She had maintained herself and her children—• there wero only threo Jeft now. Two of tho children were with a Bistor and one was with a frieud. Sho had received no maintenance for his children. Corroborative evidence was given by two witnesses. At the conclusion His Honour said to Mr. Jacksonj: "You have not proved your case. You have not proved habitual drunkenness and cruelty-for tho four years immediately prior to tho proceedings. It eeems to be more a case of desertion, but that is not one of, tho grounds of the petition. I am prepared to give the lady her divorce, but I cannot make (the law." . Mr. JacKSon asked and was given permission to recall the petitioner. The latter said that 6he left her husbnnd about four years ago. His Honour intimated that he would roiLsiilt the other Judges on the point. Decision was accordingly deforred. ■