“MUTUAL SEPARATION”

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 70, 15 December 1921, Page 2

“MUTUAL SEPARATION”

PLEAS IN DIVORCE SUITS TWO DEFENDED CASES Two petitions under the "mutual separation” clause of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act were dealt with by Mr. Justice Hosking in the Divorce Court on Tuesday. In the first case Harold Harding Morris asked for dissolution of his marriage with Daisy Jessie Morris. Mr. P. AV. Jackson appeared for tho petitioner and Mr. H. F. O’Leary for the respondent. The petitioner gave evidence, stating that the parties were married’ in November, 1913, at Wellington. Both children of tho marriage were living. "I did not get on with my wife,” he said. “After a year my wife became dissatisfied for nothing. I gave her a good home and furniture." lie added that the respondent had left home twice, going, as far as he knew, to her mother’s home. She was away for a week. In 1917 the respondent went away for four days. Petitioner went home one day and found her removing her personal effects. Prior to that occasion she had been away for six weeks on holiday. AVhen he wanted to go for a week-end pig hunt she said that if he went- away she wouldn’t bo there when he returned. She had taken the children away, but brought them back the next morning. In September. 1917, the end came. "I told her the best thing she could do would be to get out," said the petitioner. “She said she would do so, and I said she could have enough furniture for two rooms.” Petitioner had agreed to pay his wife £~ a week as maintenance, but she said “I’ll get ,£'3 out of you." The respondent practically stripped the house of furniture. Some time after the separation, said petitioner, his wife brought him to Court for increased maintenance, and an increase of 12s. 6d. a week was ordered. She had never asked for a reconciliation. He could not go to see the children, as bis wife would only abuse him if he did. "For peace .and quietness sake I stayed away,” he added. Cross-examined, petitioner admitted that he had never asked his wife to return to him. He had no complaint against her care of tho children or her conduct. The last time he saw tho children the eldest, one would not go to him. "It serves you right,” his wife had said. For three months tho parties had not shared the same room, 'but this was not at his wish. He denied having become friendly with a single girl prior to the separation, but he admitted having walked with her at a later stage. He was a young man and he did not see why, if his wife eared to play up, ho should “stay on a pedestal.” Re-examined, petitioner admitted that he had been working late at night, but during the war period he had to be at his business. . . Evidence on behalf of the petitioner was given by his father Thomas Charles Morris. This concluded tho petitioner’s It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the parties had not separated by mutual consent, and that respondent had been forced to leave her husband through his actions. Tho respondent, in evidence, stated that she was now living with her sister at Ngaio. She had gone once to Nelson for a holiday, and her husband had asked her to extend it to three months, presumably so that ho could "have ft fly round." She did not think that her husband had any right to go on a pig hunting expedition during the week-end after her return. Respondent alleged that her husband had spoken slightingly of her mother on various occasions. When the climax came her husband went to live with his people and gave her authority to take tho children and what furniture she required. It might have been upon her suggestion that for about three weeks previous to tllo . p “ r V.’L s husband and she had occupied d.ftcrent bedrooms. "He was working late at iu„ht ’’ she said. "In returning late he° wks liable to disturb the children I am prepared to go back to my husband His Honour stated that he co’ ll '' Jl ?t find that the parties had separated bj mutual consent. He considered that Mi. Jackson was trying io turn every case of desertion into separation by mutual C °lZgal’ argument on that point followed %he Judge remarked that the respondent's evidence had helped tho petitioner’s suit. On the P«titioner a evidence, the suit would have been dismissed. However, he would reserve his judgment.

RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES. John Joseph Kelleher asked for dissolution of hie marriage w ) tb Kelleher on the ground that they Nad been legally separated for over three years. Mr. O’Leary appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Jackson for the reePTho en Mse for the petitioner, briefly, was that the parties had not together for over six years. At tho time of. the separation, the petitioner was resident in- Mastorton, and when his wife left him she took one of the two children with her. In June, 1917 during the absence of the petitioner, the respondent obtained an <mder of separation, maintenance, and guardianship. He had’ not always been able to comply with the order, and legal actions followed as a result. . The petitioner, when cross-examined, denied that ho had neglected the respondent during tho years they were toFor the respondent, it Was submitted that the petitioner had consistently neglected his wife, who had been left alone night after might, in a lonely h-jiise, on tho outskirts of Masterton. She had had to go away for her health. Mr Jackson maintained that.tho judicial separation was. made necessary by the husband’s failure to maintain her properly. The Court should deal with the oa.so under the discretion given it bv section 4 of the Act, restricted by the judgment in the well-known Mpson i. Mason case. The respondent, giving evidence, said that from the day of her marriage her husband had not treated her properly. In the Catholic Church at Newtown, she had been asked by tho priest to sign a document stating that children of the marriage would be brought up tn the Catholic faith. She had refused and trouble had resulted. Soon after the birth of her first child, her husband Itad told her he was going to take it to be baptised in the Roman Catholic faith; and tho result had been that the doctor attending her .had ordered the petitioner out of the house. Later, hei husband had taken the big' house previously . referred to, much against her will, 'iter sister had never lived there with her. The house was very dilapidated. Her husband used to bo at home for only a short time each day. “The place got on my nerves,” said the respondent. She used to sleep at times underneath the fir-trees, outside tho house, on account of her fear. She used io stay there until ]i«r husband camo home. 1 ho doctor told her that if she did not get out of the place she would be ln a lunatic asylum before she was in her; grave. When she left, her 'husband refused to give her her personal effects, and her no money for tho first six months of her absence. Later, ho promised to par ,£t a week maintenance, but arrears mounted up until the sum of ,£GO was owing, and prjeoedings were taken lor recovery in the Magistrate 8 Court. The petitioner was in possession of her wedding presents. She had offered to retain to him some years ago. Cross-examined, respondent said that if tho petitioner provided for her children and herself she would n °l oppose tho divorce.

The Judge considered that each party had taken up an attitude of hostility from the day of the marriage. The Court coijld not say who was to blame. A decree nisi was granted, to bo moved absolute in three months. CRUELTY ALLEGED. On the ground that he had been separated from his wife since 1918 by deed of separation, AVilliam Irvine petitioned yesterday for a divorce from Jane Crawford Irvine. Mr. Justice Hosking was on tho bench. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. P. AV. Jackson for tho respondent, who defended the suit, alleging that her husband had treated her cruelly. The petitioner, giving evidence, said that there had been four children of the marriage. Tho ages of the living children were 27, 26, and 23 respectively. After differences ho and his wife had agreed to separate, tlie deed being mad© in 1918. Tho respondent stated that since 191 a her husband had been guilty of cruelty towards her. On occasions he had struck her and had seized her by the throat. She had not been a party to anv legal separation, sho said. On the other hand, her husband had deserted her. There was a woman in the case—a Mrs. Dawson—who had been responsible for much trouble. In a counter-petition, tho respondent asked for judicial separation from her The evidence for the respondent had not been concluded when the Court rose. The case will be finished to-day.