DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 281, 23 August 1919, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT

SUGDEN V. SUGDEN WIFE'S PETITION DISMISSED. His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards preBided at the Supremo Court' yesterday and heard tho divorce suit of Sugden v. .Sugden.- Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for the petitioner and Mr. T. Neave lor the respondent. • Mr. B. P. Gardiner was foreman of tho jury. Mary Ellen Sugden sought a dissolution .of her marriago with Arthur .Boss Sugden on the ground of desertion. The parties were. married on May 24, 1897, at-Makotuku, and'there were five children of tho marriage. In February, 1911, tho respondent was.alleged to.have'wilfully., deserted, the petitioner without, just cause) and for five years and upwards they had lived apart. The respondent denied that ho had deserted the petitioner, and alleged that the petitioner in fact deserted him about March 2, * 1911, and that immediately after such desertion respondent took the custody and control of the children and had. retained such custody ever since. Mr.. Jackson iu opening said that at the time of .the marriage. the respondent was an hotelkeepcr at Makotuku, and remained thero for two years. Prom there t'li3 parties went: farming . for a few years. Later they went to Ormondville, w'horo the respondent kept a, store, and remained thero for five or six'yean. They then went to Damiovirke, and whilo there tho petitioner started a small confectionery business, while tho respondent did nothing for about twelve months. . Respondent then took 'up butchering at Ormondville, _ while petitioner. remained at Dannevirke. They lived together until 1911.', From tho'first the respondent was a heavy drinker and treated his wife disgracefully. In tho early part of 1911 the petitioner found that she could no longer tolerate her husband's behaviour and left him and came to Wellington. Counsel contended that if tho evidence showed tliat.the petitioner was justified in. leaving. her husband then she was entitled ,to. the relief tasked. ... ■ The petitioner, Mary Ellen. Sugden, gave evidonce in support of counsel s statement. Tho witness gave details of cruelties and testified to her husbands drunk-en habits. .. . , ■ •Mr. Neave protested and said thero was no allegation of cruelty and no ■ 1 allegation of drunkenness. The respondent's evidence had bean taken at Gisborno, and these questions answered by him. Had the 1 respondent been present in Court it would not have mattered, but owing to the railway ditnculties it was necessary to tak? .his. evidenco in Gisborne. ■ His Honour: Well, do you want an adjournment, Mr. Neave?. ' Mr. Neave: I do not like w take tn© responsibility of . going on. His Honour: The respondeat should ]iavo been given notice of what he foaxl to meet. ... ... .. , ■ After further argument it was decided to go on with tlie case. The petitioner was then questioned as to her husbaud's sobriety. , To Mr. Neave: She never saw ner ohildren after she left her husband in 1911,' and she had made no attempt to see them because 6he knew she not be allowed to sea tbem. Her eldest son went to tho war, but she never saw him. She did not take legal advice as to her position aftor she left home. Edith Gantz, sister of the petitioner, tendered ' evidence corroborating the , statements of the petitioner with respect to tho respondents drinking habits anil his behaviour towards his wife James Butler, a brother of the petitioner. also gave corroborative evidence. This closed the ense for the petitioner. Mr. Neave, for the respondent, said tho caso ws a peculiar one in that tho petitioner herself admitted that she. •»as the one who left home.An < -xplana.tion of the position was possibly that oecauso her husband did not take any notice_of her aftor she left home the thouglt there would tion ' He put that view .before the jury. Not one independent witness had • been called to substantiate the Allegations drunkenness and-.frequent The evidence of the respondent and hw son,"taken at Gisborne, was read over to issue placed before the jury was as to MX conduct of Ivas siwh as to hnvo forced his wife to desert .him. To this question the i. J returned a negative answer, lhq ptn If™was accordingly dismissed, and t.ho question of tho wife's coste was reserved.