DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 206, 26 May 1921, Page 7

DIVORCE COURT

DECREES NISI GRANTED 'UNDEFENDED CASES > ■ ■ The quarterly sessions of tho Divorce Court wore continued yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking. Tho whole of the day was occupied with the hearing of undefended cases. RAMSAY V. RAMSAY. Alice Aland Mary ' Ramsay (Mr. V’Leary) said, her husband, John Ramsay, left her in 1308 to go to his people in Scotland. But sho saw him in Wellington later, land aftepwards ascertained that ho had gone to Melbourne. In answer to His Honour, petitioner said the reason she had not instituted proceedings before wag that she was so disgusted with her married life that she had let the years slip by. A decree nisi was allowed, after corroborative evidence 'had been given. MALIN V. MALIN. Adultery was tho ground on which William Malin asked for a divorce from Ada Jauo Malin, citing Athol Legge as co-respondent. Tho parties, said Mr. O’Leary, were married on Juno 5, 1313, prior to the petitioner going to the war. When he got back ho lived with his wife for one week, the co-respondent being in the "house on his return. Respondent had -another child, tho father of which she confessed, was Legge. “My wife said eha preferred living with Leggo than with me,” said petitioner, “so she went and lived with him. They are living as Mr. and Mrs. Leggo, and have tho child with them-** Alfred John Malin, brother of the petitioner, said ho had seen his sister-in-law with . Leggo during his brother’s absence; on tho .latter’s return witness know that Mrs. Malin left him. Evidence was also given by the law clerk who served tho divorce papers on Legge and the respondent. A decree nisi was granted, MOORE V, MOORE. Ada. Moore (Mr. Jackson) proceeded against Alexander Hughes Moore on the ground of desertion. Counsel said the parties had been marled in 1905. Petitioner said that respondent deserted her Soon afterwards, and had not maintained her,, although an order had been made by ’the Magistrate’s Court. After corroborative evidence had 'been given a decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months, with interim custody of the children to the petitioner, COLEBERD V. COLEBERD. Gertrude Miriam Coleberd aeked for dissolution of her marriage with Edward Coleberd on the ground of desertion. Mr. O’Leary appeared for the petitioner, who said the parties were married in 1907, in ■England. Shortly after the marriage they left for New Zealand. Petitioner had not lived with her husband for five years. There was one child of the marriage, born in "1910, and this child the petitioner had maintained since it was 11 months old. Petitioner was working for her living at the present time. She did not know that her husband was still alive until a warrant was issued for his ■ arrest, after which, he agreed to pay 17s. fid. a week towards the maintenance of the child. A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months. O’DOWD V. O’DOWD. A similar plea was made by Elizabeth O’Dowd against Patrick O’Dowd. Mr. O’Leary appeared for the petitioner, who Baid she was married on May 30, 1900, and there was one child of the marriage. Sho lived with her husband near Dannovirke until 1910, when she entered into a deed of separation, which included la. provision for the payment of a certain sum each week as maintenance. Subsequently Magistrate’s Court proceedings were taken against tho respondent. The court orderly, Constable D. A. D. Stewart, produced the “Police Gazette,’’ which referred to tho proceedings, after which a decree nisi was granted. UREN V. UREN. On tho ground of habitual drunkenness and cruelty, Theresa Laura Uren (Mr. Scott) asked for dissolution of her ' marriage with Henry Ellis Uren. ■ Giving evidence, tho petitioner said she was married in 1915. and' had lived with her husband in various towns during the last few years. There was one child of the marriage. When tho parties were married her husband told her that he had '.£160, but later admitted that he had told an untruth. When chided by her, he threatened to shoot himself. On other occasions he ill-treated petitioner, and threatened to cut his throat. On various occasions it was necessary to call in neighbours on account of her husband’s brutality. The mother of the petitioner, Mrs. Rose Patterson, also gave evidence. The case was adjourned. MAWSON V. MAWSON. Mabel Elorence Mawson (Mr. Wilford) asked for dissolution of her marriage on tho ground of desertion. She said she had been married in 1911, and lived at Palmerston North until October, 1912, when her husband deserted- her. An order was then made for maintenance, after which tho respondent disappeared. There was ono child, which tho respondent had never supported. The order to the respondent was made by substitute of service. A decree nisi was allowed. ARBUCKLE V. ARBUCKLE. The same ground was put forward by Ernest Vernon Arbuckle (Mr. Wilford) in his case against Lyla Winifred Eliza Arbuckle. The parties were married in 1913, and there were three children of the marriage. Subsequently respondent went to hoc mother's home at Timaru, refusing to return to him. When petitioner wrote to her asking her to return sho refused, and said she was glad to be rid of him. A decree nisi was granted under the usual terms. STONE V. STONE. Adultery was alleged by Beatrice Naomi Stone against Charles Edwin Fairbun Stone. Air, Scott appeared for the petitioner, who said tho parties were married at Taihape in 1913. She had occasion to complain of her husband’s "carryings on” with other women. There was one particular woman petitioner complained of. “He refuseci to stop going with her, so I left him," she said. Respondent’ had . not maintained her since she loft him. A decree nisi was granted under the usual terms, the Judge remarking on the paucity of the evidence. CLARKE V. CLARKE. Ellon Clarke (Air. Hislop) alleged that John,Thomas Clarke had deserted her. The parties were married in 1901, and in 1912 respondent left her. Since then the petitioner had carried on business on her own behalf. After corroborative evidence had been heard a decree nisi was granted under tho usual terms. DARLEY V. PARLEY. Joseph Parley (Mr. Perry) alleged that Aland Arabella Parley had committed adultery with Osman Franks. Tho parties were married in 1915, and lived in Auckland until September, 1917. when petitioner went to tho war. The one child of tho marriage was in petitioners custody. "My wife met mo at Wellington when I camo back,” said petitioner, “and she told mo then she liked another fellow bettor than me.” Respondent had gone to Christchurch to a man named Franks (tho co-respondent). She sent back tho wedding ring and engagement ring Cecil Horatio Cresswoll. ot the People's Patace (Salvation Army), Cbn»t«hulch’ Boid X “Mr and Mrs Franks •iaved at toe Palace in June, 1919- A decree nisi was granted, after evidence W been given of tho respondent s registering an illegitimate child.

WALKER V. WALKER. Frederick Clarence Walker (Mr. Jackson) alleged that EUft Frances Agnes Walker had deserted him. 'The parties, said the petitioner, were married in 1912, there being one child living. The. respondent went to hot people and refused to return to him. He -went to Gisborne at the end of 1918 to try to effect a legal separation. His Honour: “There is no evidence of desertion for three years. , . . Why tho urgency? Why not wait until the three years are finished?” A decree nisi was granted. SIMONDS V. SIMONDS. Insanity was tho ground on which Isabel Violet Simonds asked for dissolution of her marriage with Aaren Frederick Simonds. For tho petitioner, Mr. Neilsen said the parties ware married in 1910, at Featherston, there being one child. In August, 1011, respondent was committed to Porirun Asylum, where he was at present. Dr. Jeffery, superintendent at Porirua, gave evidence as to the respondent's condition. A decree nisi under the usual tea-ms was granted, with cu - tody of the child to petitioner. LOVEGROVE V. LOVEGROVE. Annie Lovegrove asked for divorce from Ernest Lovegrore on the ground of section in 1915, at Onehunga. There ware seven children of the marriage, and these she had had to support. A decree nisi was granted. BEATON V. BEATON. Frances Emma Afabel Beaton alleged habitual drunkenness and failure t maintain against George NormanJteaton The marriage took place at Oamaru in 1910 Whil<> the parties' were living at Taihape in 1916, the respondent, said petitioner, was never sober. He was dimissed from his employment on several occasions, but after petitioner bad enheated the employers, ho was reinstated. A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months. BARR V. BARR. William Rodger Barr (Mr. Bl ® v y rr said that he had been separated from Mina Barr since 1910, and he asked for a divorce on the ground d eswt.on. The separation was for an order of Court by consent, and there was ( agreement regarding maintenance want to be sure in a case like this that the husband-dsn’t attempting to get rid of his obligation to support his wife, remarked His Honour. The petitioner said that since, the separation his wife had been keeping boarders . I often used to see her in the street in Manganui" he said. "She wants a too" A decree nisi was granted. The Judge said he desired to give the respondent full opportunity in regard to application for alimony. COLNETT V. COLNETT. William Horace Colnett (Mr. Jackson) asked for restitution of osnfogal ngh from Violet Daisy Colnett. The case had been before Mr. Justice Salmond who refused a petition on the ground of desertion. The parti M were married in 1915, and tho respondent said Colnett, left him three months afterwards. lie wls ouito Willing, upon his. return from the war in 1919, to take his wife back, but she would not go. I want her back, even now," said petitioner. Restitution within fourteen days was ordered. brandon'vTbrandon. Porcy Eustace Brandon (Mr. Wilford) alleged adultery against Clam Amelia Brandon. Frank Blake being named as co-respondent Evidence as to having watched the respondent and cOyTespondent was given bv B. Munns, a private detective, who added that he served divorce papers on them in a house George Street. A decree nisi was granted.

STAVELEY V. STAVELEY. Failure to comply with, an order for restitution of conjugal rights was th ground of an action brought, by Edith ITrcy Staveley iMr. Wilford) against Charles George Staveley. Desertion was also alleged. A decree nisi was granted under the usual terms. SAUNDERS V. SAUNDERS.. Philip Leslie Saunders (Mr. Wilford) alleged misconduct against Florence Margaret Saunders. The parties, said petitioner, wero married in 1895, in Mai stone, Kent. An illegitimate child had teen born to her after she left petitioner in 1919 with a man, -John 0 Dowd. Petitioner had received a letter begging him to take her back* On l " ve ® tl S a ‘ tion petitioner found respondent living with O’Dowd, at Wanganui. A decree nisi was granted. STOVE V. STOVE. Adultery and desertion were alleged by Gavin Colvin Stove (Mr. 0 Leary-) against Ada Esther Stove; Joseph Jasper G'ribble being named as co-respondent. For the respondent. Mr. Jackson said his client admitted desertion, but denied adultery. The parties were married in 1909, but had not lived together since 1912'. Respondent had since been living in Wellington under another name. A decree nisi was granted. ANDERSON V. ANDERSON. Herminie. Anderson (Mr. Wilford) asked for a divorce from Walter Anderson. The .parties were married in 1901, and had five children. A deed of separation was made in 1915, but the respondent had not complied with the order, in so far as he had not paid anything by way of maintenance. A decree nisi was granted, with the custody of the youngest child to the petitioner. HANNIG V. HANNIG. Adultery was the ground on which Dora Mercedes Hnnnig (Mr. Wilford) aeked for dissolution of. her marriage with Paul Walter Hnnnig. The parties were married in Australia in 1910, and came to Now Zealand. There was ono child of the marriage. The respondent had admitted adultery. A decree nisi was granted. GURR V. GURR. Robert Henry Gnrr (Mr. W j Kor s a1 ’ leged adultery against Emily Grace Lousa. Gu.rr, Samuel Cooper being named as co-respondent. Petitioner said he saw his wife go into a public park at night with the co-respondent, and found them i-t a compromising position Inter. \\ He charged, respondent “owned up to having committed adultery. A decree nisi was granted. . Further cases will probably bo heard latcir in the week. ORMROD V. ORMROD. Joseph Ormrod (Mr. Hoggard) a»ked for dissolution of his marriage with Florence Ormrod, contracted in England in 1903, on the ground that his wife had deserted him. A decree nisi was granted, the respondent having written indicating that she “would have no more to do with the petitioner..