SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8354, 14 February 1913, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

DIVORCE ACTIONS. EIGHT PETITIONS GRANTED. The attention of his Honor Mr Justice Chapman was occupied for some time yesterday morning with petitions for divorce. In all eight cases came before him, and six were the result of misconduct. Annie Ashton applied to have her marriage with Charles Ashton dissolved on the ground of misconduct. Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for the petitioner. The parties were married on February 13th, 1909, and lived together at Petone, the respondent being employed at the Gear Meat Works. Evidence was given as to respondent having misconducted himself, and his Honor granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months. Petitioner was allowed costs on the lowest scale. Desertion was the ground upon which Victoria May Wertheim applied for a divorce from Frank Philip Wertheim. Mr Wilford appeared for petitioner, who stated that she married respondent at Hobart on May 13th, 1901, and they Hvd in Tasmania until 1903. They then came to New Zealand, and continued to live together for three years. Since than respondent had failed to maintain her. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Petitioner was allowed costs on the lowest scale and granted interim custody of the child. Samuel Evans Davies applied for a divorce from his wife Janet Davies on the ground of misconduct with J. Allen. Mr T. M. Wilfor’d appeared for petitioner, and a defence had been tiled, but was subsequently abandoned. The parties were married at Sydney on January 12th, 1909, and lived together for some time at Dunedin. Subsequently the respondent left her home and had since been travelling in company with, the co-respondent. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Frances Fyncs (Mr T. M. Wilford) applied for a divorce from Charles Fynes on the ground of desertion. Petitioner said that she was married to respondent on June 9th, 1879 at Tasmania, and they had two children. During the last six years he had deserted her and she had had to keep herself. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to ’°e made absolute within three months, with costs on the lowest scale. Rose Florence Porham applied for a divorce from ■ Theophilus William Perham on the ground of adultery. Mr A. Dunn appeared for petitioner, who stated that she was married to respondent on September 20th, 1905, at Wellington. She was then a widow with one child. She left him on June 7th, 1909, on account of his violent temper, He had later been living with another woman in various parts of Wellington, and she had been passing as Mrs Perham. On February 10th in company with a friend she met the respondent on the King’s wharf and she asked him what he had been doing during the last two years. He then admitted he had been living in adultery with Lucy Williams. Ellen Collins corroborated this evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to bo made absolute in three months, with costs against respondent on the lowest scale. Mary Anderson sought a dissolution of her marriage with John William Anderson on the ground of misconduct. Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for the i>etitionor. She said. she married respondent on July 31st, 1902. She lived with him at Otaki and Levin till Septembr SOth last. She later found out he was living at Levin with another woman. He had treated her very cruelly and had threatened her life on several occasions. Percy W. Jackson, solicitor, said that’ respondent admitted to him he was not going to defend tho case. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months with costs on the lowest scale. Mary Willcox (Mr T. M. Wilford) applied for a divorce from Thomas Edward Willcox on the ground of misconduct. The parties were married on July 30th, 1908, at Wellington, and had not lived together since September, 1911. Caroline Austin said that respondent had admitted in her presence that he had misconducted himself with another woman. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs against respondent on the lowest scale. IN CAMERA, The case of Matthew Dixon (Mr Wilford) v. Flora S. Dixon, an application for divorce, was heard in camera, and a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted. IN CHAMBERS. The divorce petition of John Fuller v. Alice Gertrude Mary Fuller and Henry Percy Harris, was mentioned in Chambers yesterday. There were two matters before the court —respondent’s summons for. further particulars and petitioner’s summons for a commission to take evidence in Australia. Mr E. M. Sladden appeared for the petitioner, and Mr T. M. Wilford for respondent. No opposition was raised to the summons for the commission, and his Honor made an order accordingly. The summons for' further particulars was opposed by counsel for the petitioner, who contended that the particulars supplied were sufficient. Argument was then heard, and his Honor said he could only make an order asking the petitioner to be as specific as be could in regard to the dates and places to which he wanted to direct his evidence. This would not prevent the calling of other evidence as to allegations within the specific period. A TRADE MARK. The sale of suspenders under a trade mark in .Wellington was responsible for an action, the C. A. Edgarton Manufacturing Co. v. Macky, Logan and Co., which was mentioned in Chambers yesterday afternoon, when the defendants applied for a change of venue to Auckland. Mr Blair, on behalf of the defendants, claimed that the case should be heard in Auckland, as the defendants’ head office was there, and a great number of the witnesses hailed from that city. Mr Young, for the plaintiffs, contended that the sale of the suspenders took place in Wellington, and as a large quantity of evidence must necessarily be obtained here the case should be heard in Wellington. His Honor reserved decision. SUMMONS TO TAX ACCOUNTS. Mr G. Hutchinson applied under the Law practitioners Act, 1908, for a

summons to have accounts by C. L. ilackay referred to the Registrar tor taxation. Mr Blair opposed the ap--irm. His Honor, after hearing argument and reviewing the facts, sam that in the circumstances he diu not think a case had been made out at all. It was hard on Mr Mackay to have challenged the accounts and the summons should not have been brought before court. The application would be dismissed, with £4 4s costs. A PARTNERSHIP. The Public Trustee, a committee ol the estate of Frederick August Poppc, proceeded against Artnur Ernest ' <ppe, farmer, of Makirikiri South, to obtain a dissolution of partnership existing between F. A. Poppe and A. E. Poppe, trading as Poppe Bros, ihe Public Trustee also asked that accounts be taken. Mr J. W. Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff, and after hearing evidence his Honor granted the application.