DIVORCE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 276, 18 August 1919, Page 10

DIVORCE

LONG LIST OF UNDEFENDED CASES (SEVENTEEN MARRIAGES DISSOLVED In the- Divorce Court on Saturday morning His Honour the Chief Justice and His Honour Mr. Justice tidwards dea.lt with a long list of undefended divorco oases. In tho case of Lillian Eliza Fox v. William James Fox, for dissolution of marriage ou the grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruelty, His Honour granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months. Tho case was heard earlier in tho week, and His Honour, reserved liis decision until he could consult his colleagues. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for the petitioner. Oriowski v. Orlowski. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for Ivy Orlowski, who sought u dissolution of her marriage with iiVanois Michaol Orlowski on thu ground of misconduct, Tho parties wore married on April 23, 1913, and lived at Wwiganui. There were two children of the marriage. The petitioned , had not lived with her husband for tho past two years. On March 2G last year tho respondent is alleged to have misconduoted himsolf at AYangauui. Tho respondent was eo-respoiidont in a case heard last session, when the petitioner obtained a. decree nisi. Corroborative evidence having been given, His Honour granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in threo mouths. Kitto v. Kitto. Alice Mabel Kitto, for whom Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared, sought a dissolution of her marriage wita Samuel Artlrnr Harper Kitto on tho ground of dosortion. The parties were married on March H, 1900, at AVairoa, and lived at Mastorton, Wairoa, and Dtinedin. There were two children of the marriage. Tho parties separated alrout seven yoars ago, on account of tho respondent's cruelty to the petitioner. No communication had passed between tho parties since tho separation; t Corroborative ovidence was given by the mother of tho petitioner, and liu .Honour granted a decree niei to bo uiado absolute in three luoiitns. Ruddle v. Ruddle. I'atience Amy Huddle, represented by Mr. 11. I , '. U'Leary, petitioned tor a dissolution of her lmirrtage with James Huddle «" the grounds of habitual drunkenness and tonicity. Tho parties were married on August 17, 18!lu, and there were four children of the marriage, three of whom were alive at present. The petitioner luul lived in Wellington for the past eix years, and prior to that at Pictou. Tho respondent was then constantly drunk and luul frequently struck the petitioner. Since coming to Wellington the respondent's drinking habits became worse, l'rohibition orders wuro i&sued against him on four occasions. He was arrested _on nioro than one ocewion for assaulting tho petitioner, and was convicted on all occasions, once being nmt to prison without tho option of a line. TJ&tectivo-Seugwint 1). W. Scott gave corroborativo evidence, and His Honour granted a decree nisi to •Iμ made absolute in threo mouths. Hood v. Hood. Mr. H. I' , . O'Leary appeared for Auuio Benedict Hood, who petitioned for a dissolution of her inniTuiKu with David Huud on the ground of misconduct. The parties were married on July 7, 1008, urn! lived at various places in New 'An\lnml. There were two children of tho marriage. The parties had not lived together for two yea re, because nt the time of separation the respondent was famiuar with another woman at Hastings Tho petitioner came to live in Wellington, nnd tho respondent called to si»e her on three occasions, but refused to return to tho petitioner, because he preferred the other woman, with whom he had lived at Hiiwera and Shannon, lie mado this iidmis.-;ion in the presence of another person. CoiTobnrnUvo evidence having been given, His Honour granted a decree nisi, to bfe made iibsolutu in three months. Baker v, Baker, t Mary Hiiniiah E. Al. Bakor Bought a (lissiiliilioii of her marriage with AVJdia.m Baker, on tiho gmiind of desertion. Tho parties were miirricd on July 2, ISM, and lived at Waiißanui, Slrallord, and Peilding. The resiiondcnt left lilic pclilioncr ii; Moreh, 11)01, ami had not returned to bur since. There were two children of till! marriage, anil both were of nge. A sister of the petitioner gave corroho-m----tive ovidonce, and His Honour granted a decreo nisi, to lie made iibMituLo in thrre months. Mr. A. ](, Atkineon appeared for tho petitioner.

Hutton v. Hutton. May Hutton sought, a dissolution of her marriage with Thomas Robertson Hutton, on the ground* of habitual drunkenness and cruelty. Sir John Findlny, K.C., with him Mr. .1. C. Morrison, appeared for the petitioner, who detailed nt length her husband's drinking hu'bits and bi'j act.-, of cruelty, describing his behaviour as "most objectionable and repulsive." Corroborative evidence was given by a sister of the petitioner, and His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made abstftuto -lifter three months. Berry v. Berry, Albert Berry, postal dork, sought a divorce from ins/. Evelyn Berry, on the ff.round of misconduct. Air. 6. 6. Watson j appeared for the petitioner, who aid ; thercs was ono child of the marriage, i v.'Juch was an unhappy one owing to the wife's "nagging" disposition. The partws agreed k> separate, and when he went to uwiip his. wife was cm ployed at lh» CtMtral Coffee Palace, in Cuba Street. He suspected her of misconduct with a man named AVi'lliain Butcher, who resided at thut establishment, and discovered thfim togc-ther in compromising situations. Evidence in corroburation was given by B. W. MWis, itHiuiyv ajenl, and a decree nisi was grauteti, with costs against the co-respondent on the lowest scale. J amis v. James. Linda James sought a dissolution of her marriage with Cecil Cavendish James, on the ground of misconduct. Mr. P. W. Tachion appeared for the petitioner, who gave evidence of having been separated from her husband, who went to the war in 1917. When he returned in .1918, it was alleged, she ascertained that lio was suffering from veneroal disease. L. W. Cousins, assistant Records cferk at Base Records, was called to substantiate this latter allegation, 'but, acting ou tho advice of a superior officer, declined to produce the file. His Honour said he had no power tu compel tho Department to produce the file if it; decided not to do so, but held that fhe other evidence was sufficient, and granted a. decree nisi, wit.li costs against the reipondent. Phimester v. Phimester. Mr. P. W. Jackson also appeared in support of tho petition of Ada Phimester against Hugh Richard Pliiniester, a petition on tho ground of desertion. Petitioner in evidence alleged drunkenness and cruelty against her husband, wh6m sho hod to leave in 1911. Since thon she had had to maintain 'herself and her child with no assistance from her hus- , band, who was always in trouble. A decree nisi was granted. Cooper v. Cooper. Ivy .Pamela Cooper proceeded against her husband, Frederick Stephen Cooper, alleging adultery as the ground of her petition for a dissolution of her marriage. She was represented by Air. P,. W. Jackson, and gave details of the re-, spondent's intimacy with a Mrs. Bradbur)', of Mastertott. Having heard evidence in corroboration His Honour granted a decree nisi with costs against the respondent.Everton v. Everton. Brian Laslio Everton sought a dissolution of his murriago with Euphemia Hastwell Everton on the ground of niisoouduct, Leonard Thomas being joined iis cd-reapondont. Mr. Jackson appeared for the petitioner, who said that when ho returned from the war in April, 1919, hie wife did not meet him. He learned of his wifo'a misconduct, and she admitted that Thomas was "her boy." Both respondent and co-respondent had admitted misoonduct to the petitioner. Other evidence in support of petitioner's statement having ten heard, His Honour grunted tho usual deoreo with costs against tho co-respondent. Dind v. Dind. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared in support of the petition of Jessie Dind v. Melbourne Hall Dind on tho ground of desertion. Married in Queensland the parties oaniq to New Zealand about 11 years ago, since wheal he had failed to properly maintain her. Subsequently ho went away, presumably to Sydney, and sho had not seen him since, although b'he knew he was now working in the Defence- Department in Wellington. Petitioner's mother also gave evidence, and a. decree nisi was granted. Kezler v. Kezler. Constanco Kezler sought a dissolution of her marriage with Phillip George Kezler on tlho ground of misconduct. Mr. P. W. Jackeon appeared for the petitioner. Tho parties were married 'in England in 1906, and tho respondent came to New Zealand first, tho petitioner followiug About nine years ago.. She had to got a separation from him in 1913 owing to cruelty. Later on she learned that respondent was tho father at' another child, tho mother being a woman named Johnston, of KaJapoi. A docreo nisi was granted. Sterling v, Starling. Maud May Sterling alleged desertion against her husband, Charles Edward Storling, <ie tho ground of her petition. Represented by Mr. Jackson, she said they were married in 1899. Respondent, a. wool-classor, had left her in 1904 with another woman. A decree nisi was granted with the custody of two children to tho petitioner. Tindlo v. Tindle, A decree nisi.was also granted' in tho oase of William Tindle v. Margaret Ellen Tindle on the ground of misconduct with one William Bayes. Mr. Jackson appeared for the petitioner, who gave evidence of his wife's infidelity while he was away at tho war. Nees v. Nees, Mary Matilda Noes, for whom Mr. H. P. O'Wry appeared, sought a dissolution of her marriage with Gustay Charles Nees on tho ground of desertion. , Tho parties were married on July 28, 1910, at Beefton, and lived at Heefton, Greyjnouth, and Hokitika. There was ono* child of the marriage. The parties separated while living in (Jreymoutlt, the respondent left the petitioner about five weeks boi'ore the child wae born and went to Dunedin. Petitioner had not been maintained, but tho respondent paid .some maintenance for tho child. Petitioned , had been in Wellington for IJ years aud had maintained herself all along. Corroborative evidence having been given, Hie Honour granted a decree nisi to bo made absolute in throe months.