UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 42, 12 November 1921, Page 3

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES SEVERAL DECREES GRANTED Several undefended divorce petitions were heard by Mr. Justice Sim, in the Supremo Court /yesterday. WARD V. WARD. Restitution of conjugal rights from Katherine Ward was asked by Walter Ward (Mr. Crombie). Petitioner said that his wife deserted him prior to his return from the war. An order for restitution within fourteen days was made. MILNE V. MILNE. A similar application by Alexander Lewis Milne (Mr. Mazengarb) against Eleanor Annio Milne was granted. , BECK V. BECK. Adultery was alleged by Sarah Beck (Mr. W. Perry) against Joseph Henry Beck, ■whom she married on June 21, 1913. There were no children of the marriage, and the parties lived together in Wellington until December, 1920. Mutual separation took place in that month. She had ascertained that her husband had been living with a woman in Willis Street. A private inquiry agent gave evidence. Beck, she said, had introduced a woman to her as "Mrs.- Beck," who had a five weeks’ old baby. A decree nisi was granted, with costs against the respondent. | MEOPHAM V. MEOPHAM. Rachel Meopham (Mr. Jackson) asked far dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Neopham on the ground of desertion. She alleged that he deserted her in 1918, after one year of married life. A decree nisi was granted. THORNE V. THORNE. Misconduct •Xs alleged by Winfield James Thorne (Mr. A. F. Wiren) against his wife, Elizabeth Jane Thorne. He alleged that his wife had given birth to an illegitimate child during a lengthy perod of separation from her husband. A decree nisi, was granted. BLACK V. BLACK. That his wife, Sarah Jane Black, had deserted him, was alleged by Robert Black (Mr. Jackson). The parties, petitioner said, had been married in 1900, and desertion had taken place ip November, 1911. There were six children of the marriage, who had remained with ths petitioner. A decree nisi was granted. HARDING V. HARDING. Henry John Frederick Harding (Mr Burridge) alleged that Jane Rainnea Harding had deserted him in 1912. It was stated that the respondent, went to her family, and did not return. A decree nisi was granted. MASON V. MASON. On the ground of alleged adultery, Elizabeth Mason asked for dissolution of her marriage with Thomas William Mason. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Buxton. She stated that the parties were married in 1908 Aftcir the respondent returned from the war he left he?, and later was the co-respondent in a divorce suit. "Ths respondent was living with another woman,” said a private detective, in evidence. A decree nisi was granted. TREVITHICK V. TREVITHICK. Henry John Trevithick (Mr. O’Regan) accused his wife, Laura Spicer Trevithick, of having committed adultery with Claude Barnes. Giving evidence, the petitioner said that tlie parties weiq married in 1913, and lived together until July, 1919. , , „ "My wife came home drunk, said the .petitioner. “Wo had words, and she left the house, leaving the one child with me.” Petitioner added that about four months ago ho ascertained that the respondent was living at- Cambridge. He went to Cambridge, and found his wife livin" with the co-respondent. Evidence as to .ths alleged adultery was given by a private inquiry agent. A decree nisi was granted, with costs against the co-respondent. MOONEY V. MOONEY. William .Charles Mooney asked for restitution of conjugal rights from Eileen Mooney. Mr. P. W.v Jackson appeared fo? the petitioner. Th’e parties were married in 1918, and there were no chddren of the rfrarnage. In May, 19-1. respondent left the- petitioner. She hau gammoned him for fai life to maintain but the case was struck out. He asked her to return home, but she refused, and continued to remain away from. ho me a "Miss" Mooney. The usual order for restitution was made. SIMPSON V. SIMPSON.

Johanna Simpson alleged desertion against John Edgar Simpson. Mr. Buxton appeared for the petitioner,, who s-tid that the parties were matried in IM2, and lived together until 191 L when the respondent deserted her. He had only paid her maintenance for tuo ™After corroborative evidence had been given a decree nisi was granted. HOOD V. HOOD. A decree nisi was granted William David Hood (Mr. T. Wilford) against Ethel Mary Hood. Petitioner, who based his petition on the ground of desertion said P that his wife left him m 1917 and had ndt since returned.