THE DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 202, 21 May 1920, Page 3

THE DIVORCE COURT

UNDEFENDED PETITIONS

NUMEROUS CASES DEALT WITH YESTERDAY

Mr. Justice Salmond yesterday heard a number of undefended petitions in divorce. George Oharlea Olapperton (Mr. W. Perry) alleged thud Kmily Margaret =■ Olapperton was guilty of committing adultery with, his brother, Henry Frederick William Olapperton. Petitioner said he went to the war, and on his return v,*as : met hy his wife, hiß two children, and the co-respondent. The party went to the house of petitioner's siater, and stayed there for some hours. Then the respondent and the co-respondent went, off t" Khandallah, leaving petitioner behind.- A day or two later petitioner went to Khi"dailah, and in a house there found hit wife, with his children and another child. 1 Respondent admitted that the father of the third child was the co-respondent. During the two years that he was at the front, petitioner received only six letters from the respondent. The co-respondent was at thp wp.T\ l.nt returned before —etltitioner. The Court granted a decree nisi, fSniliam Henry Hepburn (Mr. J. Scott) charged Inez Mabel Hopburn with having • misconducted herself with John O'Donogliue. Petitioner Raid he married the respondent at ReeftOn in 1910.' He went to tho front during the war, and when lie came back ho was mot bv lis wife. She i said elie had had had luck; a child had ! been born.. She named the co-respondent ; a? tho father. Witness told her that that J "was the flnißh" so far as he was concerned. Petitioner was the father of five ' children. One was dead, and the other i four were under the caro of the Education'! Department. Petitioner knew, from what 1 he had seen, that his wife was living with ; the co-respondent. A decreo nißi was granted. , ! Annie Tnder alesed that Frederick Leslie Roy Inder, to whom she was married on ApriJ 29. 1910, failed to provide her with a home. Sho parted from him in Auckland in 1912, and for eight years 6he had supported herself After hearing other evidence. His Honour found that desertion had been proved. He granted a decree • ' nisi. . | • Muriel Khavah Priestley (Mr. T. Neave) i charged Samuel Clifford Priestley with .j being an habitual drunkard. Dr. Young ■ gave evidence that' during the past four i or five years the respondent's, condition had been one. of chronic alcoholism. Bespondent had been treated for delirium tremens. Petitioner stated that she was married on August 3, 1901, tit St. Peter's Church, Onchunga. For the past four or. five years Prie6tley had contributed nothing to her support. -He was at present at Koto Eoa, wlfither he had. been sent by a Magistrate.' Several'witnesses gave corroborative evidence about respondent's drinking habits. His Honour granted a decree nisi. . Ernest Jane (Mr. C. W. Nielsen) acc.uscd Anna . Bella Jane of having committed adultery with Albert Muir. .He stated that he married the respondent."on De- ' ccmber _1, 1939, at Napier. There v ere two children of the marriage. In 1916 respondent left petitioner, and went to Auckland, afterwards coming to Welling.-' ton. Petitioner came to Wellington also, and after nine n-onths' cohabitation, respondent went off ngain remaining away for 12 months. Then she returned'to petitioner. an<l asked.for a Infl. clinnce. .She was given that chance, but about Sep- I tember nf lapt. year she became, intimato with Albert Muir. On November ?A. 29.19, she loft petitioner and, went to Wanganui. She took her two boys, and travcllnd in the company of Muir.. On visiting Wanganui. netHioner found her living- in a • cottagc with tie co-respondent. A 'decree nisi was , granted , Emily Isabel Jlrcwer (Mr. Ward) told the Court that she was married to John Walter Rhnnsn Brewer in 1903. She had •! one child, of that mnrrince, and two chill dren of a, former marriage. Respondent . faded to-support her. a»d left her. She had not lived with him for the napt nip? years. His Honour granted a decree nisi.. Elsie Anderson (Mr. Ward) stated that • on April 3. 1912. she married Albert Anderson, and Tiad two children. Three years ago she tow erupted a separation orderon the grounds of cruelty and desertion. After-the malum* of the order, she did not' live with respondent again.. Soron time atn she heard that respondent had travelled with another woman, whom he represented to be his wife. Petitioner had from the resnondent an admißsion to that' effect. His Honour granted a decree nisi, with an interim order for custody of tho cVMi-on. Katharine Josephine Brady (Mr. H F O'Lcnry).said that in. 1907. jit Wanciinui. • thn was married to. Brady:' She last.lived with him in 19!2 ' at, Scatoun. Resnondcnt, W erit to Gi«linrhc to get, work. He said he would send for netitioner. In five ' months he write four' letters, whifh petitioner answered'' Petj. tioner then heard no more from him. His Fonour. after hearinc corroWative evideiee of desertion. Tranted a decree 1 nisi, i Arthur Ba.rnett, 'Mr. O'Lear.v) rravc' evidence that Maisie Trene Barnctt was married to him in 1911. He went home late one night during last vear. a*-d aj W ■fcy .l'ip hick of the house he his wife letting another man .put. hv j the front. The.man, it tran«nired, was Ridem- Rpar«-'>. ..Eesnondent lite*to Napier with Spargo.. and admitted to petitioner, that, she had done so. -petitioner was a tramways employee, andnnon . one neensinn Snarco and the resnondent had traveller! to Newtown together r.p cex that petitioner vw driving. 'A decree nst was ernntrd. w»th ar. interim' nrrler that petitioner nhmid have custody of Ihe /•nji.nroT l . nf TfifirrinF'f 4 Kathleen Pitten 'Mr J, ..M-nttV stated in 1909. she was to Owen David William Patten. Th"re were' two children of the mnrr-inrro. d'.e.l Res-ondent, 'eft. nolitim'pi- en .fanuary 25, <915. and had •nit,l'""d .w-il'v Ver sinee. Petitioner wa'in 191?. iraoted a maintenance orcler, Bespondcnt'mnde n'av-. irregularly for three vearp- biit ■ ■' ?7r."'he: contributed nothing towards petitioner s sunnort. The c.-iife nf rnapo'ident s desertion was an attachment to another woman. His Honour granted a decren nisi, wit* ev, interim order for ! custody of, tho child. . • J.iTinie Blauweis (Mr., Halelt) charged Reuben Elauv.-cis-at present an inmate, of ? incntJil hospital—with having deserted her Petitioner said that the respondent, treated her badly, and even went so far as to burn lier forehead with cigarettes. He left her without any cxnlauafi 0 *it a ilcn , our required some, proof tnat the respondent wn-a not insane when I he deserter the petitioner. Petitioner's ; counsel called evidence upon the °oint! J A!i 3 i "i 01 ! 1 * Bunted a decree ni6i. i Piiiitei '? r dult . e ry W«a the ground of J.uzabet.i Harriet Cowan's petition for a dissolution..of her marriage with John David Cowan. Mr. O'Leary appeared in support of the petition. Petitioner said that she was married in 1915. . Despondent went away with t,hc Now Zealand forces, and petitioner followed him to the Old Country. Co\van was several times arrested as an . absentee. Khe jtad not been with him w ,ice June. 1917. Evidence snov.ed that some t,:ni.e after June, 1917 ifoe military authorities arrested Cowan. ™d Toinid that he had contracted p. certain diseased He was' soon missing aeain and was-posted as a deserter. A decree nisi ivas granted. Elizabeth Lewis (Mr. O'Leary) said tliat slie w;as married to Charles Lewis on December 14. 1933. 'This year she and a private- innuiry,..agent witched.the respondents movgjhents. • They found indication, that, respondent was misconducting ? ?.. wili another woman. Tho Court granted petitioner a dccree nisi, with an !»HTinv order for the custody of the', cliilElizabeth Jane Hasier ■ (Mr. Hey) was granted a derrcc nisi against Arlhnr Taslor. Who She alleged woj .rruiltv of adultery. Petitioner stated that.she wa=. married to the respondent Hiilc the latter was lr. camn at Fcatherslon. Savage Corry • Evans 'Mr. W. Per-yl stated I hat Jane Ann Jjnd drp^rtcd hearing notitiouer's evidence wnnnip reF'?rved decision. A dccrpo abnolnte war. fronted on Ifon wifcs petition in the case of liiordan v., E'ordan. His Honour made a linal order that petitioner chould have custody of the children. day 10 C o,lr t adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-