DIVORCE CASE
FARMER * SEEKS DISSOLUTION. WIFE' DEFENDING PETITION. •• WELLINGTON, Sep, 15. Based on a. written agreement, entered into by the parties in April, 1929, ■a petition for a dissolution of his marriage, with ■ Alice Frances -Moorcock, was brought in the Suprinrie Court, by Thomas Moorcock, a Wairarapa farmer. •'-•--.'Mrs- Aloordock- is •defending' the- petition on the ground that the separation was 'caused by wrongful "acts fifed conduct % the‘petitioner. The'petitioner stated that the marriage was ’on ’January Ist, ; 1908, a)nd He lived wfth his' wife till April 15th, 1£)29,. on which lie entered ' iiitO a separation agreement. There J was one child, a sob, boro'in Novembr, T96®.
Mrs Moorcock gave evidence that they lived happily till 1929. Her husband prospered and was able. to buy a' motor car, * and from that time his manner changed towards her. He developed the fixed habit of going out auid leaving her. At times he ’stayed away all 1 night, and at other times went away for th® week-end.V It:. alleged that petitioner became friendly with another woman and subsequently transferred his affection v/te .various women in the district and negleetedliis wife.
It rvas alleged that wlienMrs Moorcook was ordered into the hospital in Wellington.in 1928, he refused to take her in the car, or allow the son to take her in. He gave her £3, and she went in a service carl He did not visit her, and wrote Only one note, in lead pencil.
After lea ring the hospital she went for a trip to the Islands with a sister. On her return, lie made vile accusations against her, in respect of a native. Driven to desperation, ultimlatelv she consented to a separation, and signed the document without seeking legal advicee. She had dressed herself with money from the sale of egg-s.
Counsel said that witnesses would say that the respondent was always a good wife, arid toelpt a good clean lloriie, and that it was due to the petitioner’s neglect, which widened the broach, that it eventually ltd to separation. 'There Was "no dbubt that wrongful acts and conduct by the petitioner had caused the separation.
Evidence was heard from Mrs Mooircock, Frank Thomas Moo"cook, and tivo neighbours, after which the court adjourned until to-morrow.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19320916.2.71
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1932, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
373DIVORCE CASE Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1932, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in