DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 61, 5 December 1919, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT

HOLMES v. HOLMES.

In' the Divorce Court yesterday morning His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard the petition of Winifred Mary Kempthorne Holmes,, who sought a dissolution of her marriage with Garnet Bowen Holmes on the grounds of misconduct with several women in divers places. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. P. H. Putnam, appeared for the petitioner. In February, of last year the petitioner obtained a judicial separation, and it was found desirable to bring tho present suit because of the alleged continued misconduct of the respondent. It was B.tated in evidence that the parties were married 011 May 11, 1907, at Wellington, and lived in Wellington and subsequently went to England. There, was one child of the marriage. While living at Putney, London, the respondent left the petitioner and went to live elsewhere in London with a woman named Agnes Griifen, a divorced woman. In December, 1911, petitioner with her child returned to Now Zealand and thereafter supported herself. In 1914 tho respondent returned to New Zealand and later loft for Sydney. Petitioner joined him there and lived with him until Janu:iry, 1915, when ro?lx>ndent went to Melbourne, -leaving tno petitioner in Sydney. In July, 1915, tho petitioner joined her husband in Wellington, and lived with him until November 23, 1917; Petitioner obtained a decree for judicial separation on February 27, 1918, and the petition for flivorco wns based on ths misconduct of tho respondent which was proved at the hearing on that_ occasion, and also on his subsequent misconduct His Honour, after hearing evidence, granted .1 decree nisi, to be moved absoluto after three . months, with costs against tho respondent. His Honour said it was not necessary to make au order as to the custody of the child, ae the order made When tho decree of judicial separation was'eranted still operated. On that occasion His Honour made order under tho Infants' Protection Act in which he declared that respondent was unlit to liavo custody of the child.