THE DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 287, 28 August 1920, Page 8

THE DIVORCE COURT

UNDEFENDED ACTIONS

" GETTING LIKE AMERICA "

"The case is as weak as it can. lie. I&wovor, I will tfi'alit ti divorce, but it seems to live that if wo go on as we ara doing at present, it will soon be as easy to get a divorce here as flt is in Ainer?ea," remarked His Honour Sir. Justice Edwards in the Divorce Court yesterday afternoon. His Honour had beforo him tho petition of George A. Holland, who sought to lmvo hi;? niiirriago Willi May Holland set aside oil t'.ho grounds of desertion. Evidence was given tliat tho parties were marl'tel early in 1911, Some few weeks after tho marriage, respondent left her huHlxuid and lmd not s'aice returned. Siibscquently 6ho was frequently seen in compai;* with various men, and at presont ilmi was nil inmate of « # Salvation Ar,*y home. A-decree msi was granted, ih bo moved absolute at the end of Three months.

WINDER- V, WINDER,

David William Hcndcn Winder, for whom Jlr. H. H. Cornish appealed, petitioned for a dissolution of hife ' mnrl'iago with Catherine Sophia Winder <m the ground of adultery, Robert Gillespio beingr joined «s co-Tespondent. The parties were married at Islington, England, in November, 1917, whilo petitioner was a member of the N.Z. Expeditionary Forces. ' Fourteen days after his marriage he returned to France. At tho end of a year ho again visited his wife for ft fortnight. This was the last time ho had lived with her. In Juno, 1019, ho returned to his wife on leave from France, only to find tho correspondent (who was a lieutenant) living with. her. Petitioner left Iter an she refused to live with Iran, and in November, 1919, ho returned to NewZealand. In April of this year respondent and co-respondent arrived in the Dominion together, and subsequent ly lived together in Palmerston South. A' decree nisi was granted, with costs against tlio co-respondent on the highest soalo. I

. BELLISS V. BELLISS. -. When file case of El-ivst Arthur Hellfss v. Vivienno Doris Mliss wbb-call-ed, Mr. ,T. A. Scott asked leave on- behalf of the respondent to fil» a defence to the petition. Tho request wns .opposed by counsel for tho petitioner (Mr. 0. R. Beere) on tho ground that altiiougli the citation had been-served on respondent! in June it was not until the very day of the Court sitting that application was infldo for IcavS; to defend. Tn reply to His Honour Jlr. Scott said that tho ground of the do fenco was condonat : on by tho pe'fitioner of tlie adultery committed by respondent. His. Honour granted 'he application and pet the ease down to bo iiteo-rd by a Judge alone on Thursday next, counsel for respondent/ in tho meantime to file tho necessary defence. BURN V. BURN. Adultery was the charge mad© by Annfo Elizabeth Burn (Mr. P. IV. Jaclc«on) against Jnmes Henry Burn. Tho parties were married at Napier in. July, 1008, and lived (ogethe.;' for eight years, ivhen respondent deserted petitioner;. There was one olnld of the marriage. Recently petitioner discovered that respondent was living at Wanganni vrith nnofher woman, by whom ho had had two children. iTlio usual ordeil was made, and petitioner was granted in. twain custody of tho child, with costs on tho higher scale. LOWRIE V. LOWRIE. In another undefended case tho patties were Jessie Lowrie. petitioner, and Herbert Lowrie, respondent. Thu grounds of the petition • were desertion failure to maintain. Petitioner, who was represented by Mr. G. <r. Wavson, snivel that she was married to tho '•espondent in March, 190!), nt Wellington. Shortly after the marriage re-' spondent became addicted to drink, and in April, 19t7, ho deserted her. S'ncu then petitioner had maintained herself ond her two children, After Hearing evidence, His Honour adjourned tho case for argument as .to wliethor or not desertion had been established.! WALKER V. WALKER. A dec Toe nisil wa9 granted in the case of Henry Walker v. Kathleen Walker, respondent, and Edward Cornwall Clark, co-respondonU The marriage took place ill September, 1307, and petitioner and respondent lived together until the latter end of 1916, when petitioner enlisted in the forc»s. On his return to New Zealand (n March, J920, he found thai) his wifo had sold up their home and taken an apartment house on Wellington Terrace. She confessed to him that she was infatuated with a man named Clark, with whom she admitted oommitfln" adultery. Mr. A. J. Luke appeared for petitoner, Costs were granted against tho co-Tespondent on the highest scalp.

M'GONNELL V. M'GONNELL. Another returned soldier figured as petitioner in the casa of Frank Record M'Gonnell v. Frances Wary M'Gonnell. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for pentioner, and misconduct was the ground of tho petition. The parties were married ih May, 1917, end petitioner was away overseas for about a year. On his return he had. reason, to suspect his wife's fidelity, and afWr they had lived together again for three weeks she left home and refused to return. She had since admitted misconduct. His Honour said that the, evidence was insufficient to prove the misconduct! alleged. At the same iimo he sympathised wilth the petitioner, wlio appeared to have Iteen badly used. The case would accordingly stand adjourned, in order to enable counsel to produce further evidence ii such evidence was available.

TAYLOR V. TAYLOR. Tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout!) also presided over n short sitting of ttie Divorce Court. Harriett Lucy Tnylor, for whom Mr. H. I'. Olwiry appeared, petitioned for a dissolution of hoi* marriage with John' Alfred Taylor on the ground that respondent had eommitiXft "aflultery with one' Lizzie Sutton. The partes were married at Richmond in February. 191-f,' <ind some twelve months ago fhe respondent left home. He had, it van alleged, made a written admission of misconduct. Tho usual order was mo do.