DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 288, 30 August 1920, Page 6

DIVORCE COURT

« UNDEFENDED CASES

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) presided over a sitting ot the Divorce Court oil Saturday morning. TOLL V. MAXWELL. Leonard liich.ird Frederick Toll. for whom Mr. I'. W. Jackson appeared, proceeded against Constance Jlary Maxwell for nullity of marriage. The petitioner, who is a gunner in tlic Royal Artillery, stated that he went through a form ol marriage with the respondentoll March 1/, 1917, at Wellington, and two months ater left for the front. Ho returned 011 April 10, 1920. He lirst met her as Constance Wright, but when married she signed the register as Constance Mary Maxwell, and explained that tlic latter was her proper name. While he was at the war lie heard from her, and she wrote him to sav that she had been married but had been uivorced. The petitioner, 011 returning to New Zealand, made inquiries, and found thai the woman had been married to John Smith Andrews at Invcreargill 011 August 24, 1912. The decree nisi in the divorce proceedings was granted in May, 1917, or two months after the respondent had married petitioner, and the decree absolute was not made until October, 1918. I'lio woman had evidently made an honest mistake. As there was no defence, His Honour declared the marriage null and void. LUCAS Y. LUCAS. Dcßertion was the ground of the petition of Ethel Maud Lucas, who sought to divore.o her husband, Guy Jfiiiettc Lucas. Mr. H. P. O'Leary appeared'for tho petitioner. The parties were married on March 5, 1911, and there was one child of the marriage. In 1914 the respondent deserted his wife and went to the war in 1916. The petitioner was provided with maintenance. On 1 lie respondent's return from the war the petitioner saw him and begged him to return to her, but ho declined. Corroborative evidence having been given, His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be mado absolute in three months. TURNER V. TURNER. Desertion was also tho ground of the petition of Amelia, Annie Turner, who sought a dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Turner. Mr. V. W. Jackson ap pcared for the petitioner. The parties were married in May, 1898, and there were two children. The, respondent left his wife in 1914, and they bail not lived together since. The respondent went into camp in 1916, and was then sued for maintenance, and ordered to pay 20s. per week. 11c was discharged from camp in May, 1917, but did not return to his wife. Corroborative evidence was given, and a decree nisi was granted. AEKINS V. AEKINS. Annie Aekins, for wiioiii Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared, sought a dissolution of her marriage with Hector James Aekins on the ground of desertion. Sir. G. G. Watson appeared for the respondent, but said that he did not oppose the petition. The parties were married on March 31, 1917. and there were no children. At the time of the marriage' the respondent was an officer Ki the Defence Forces. After marriage tho parties did not get 011 very well, notwithstanding that petitioner did all she could to live amicably with the respondent. He was in camp for eleven weeks, during wlfich time he never came to see Mb wife, although 6he was in Wellington. When lie returned from tlic war, he went to live with his people, and lie never saw or spoke to the petitioner. Proof of desertion having been given by an independent witness, His Honour granted a dccreo nisi, with costs against the respondent. MULHOLLAND V. MULHOLLAND. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for Kathleen Ethel Mulholland, who sought, a dissolution of her marriage with Frederick James Mulholland, on tho ground of desertion The parties were married in November. 1916, at Christchurch, and in February, 1917, yie respondent deserted his wife, lie had not maintained her since, or lived with her. Corroborative evidence whs given, and a decree nisi was granted. M'KAIN Y. M'KAIN. Yiolct Caroline M'Kain, for whom Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared, sought a dissolution of her marriage with John Ward M'liaiu, 011 the grounS of misconduct. The parties were married on February 4, 1905, and there were four children. Petitioner and respondent lived happily together until respondent went into camp in 1916. He returned from tho front in May, 1919. llis wife met him, and they went to their home in Featherston, where he stayed three days, lie then went oil to Stratford. The petitioner was willing to join him there, but lie kept putting her off. Sho heard that her husband had married in England, and she wrote and asked hiiu if it wcro true. He denied 'this, but stated that he had lived with another woman in H/.sterton. The petitioner made inquiries and ascertained that this was true. An affidavit made:by a witness, who is bedridden in a public hospital, was put in in corroboration. A decree nisi was grant cd, and the petitioner was given the custody of the children.

TANNER, Y. TANNER. Cyril W. Tanner, for whom Mr. C. W. Ncilsen appeared, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Ann Tanner 011 tho ground of desertion. Mr. H. E. Evans appeared for the respondent, hut not to op poso tho petition. The parties were married in October, 1899, in Wellington, and there were three children. In February, 1907, tho petitioner went to England to sec his mother, and the day before lie was to leave on his return his sister received a letter to say that the respondent and the children were sailing for England. Petitioner did all he could to stop his wife and children from leaving, and himself sailed the next day for Wellington. When his vessel arrived at Hobart, ho was handed a letter written by his wife, and 011 reaching Wellington he found that Ins wife and children had gone, and that the furniture had been sold. Since then 111s wife had lived in England with the children, and she had not offered to return home.

Mr. H. E. Evans said the respondent admitted having gone to England in the circumstances described hy the petitioner, and that she had remained away, ever since. At the time she left there wore certain grievances which she thought justified her in the course she took, but after careful consideration she had lieeided that she could not put forward those grievances as a defence. His Honour granted a decree nisi.