UNHAPPY HOMES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10291, 28 May 1919, Page 6

UNHAPPY HOMES

SUITS FOR DIVORCE

UNDEFENDED CASES IN SUPREME COURT.

In the ’Supreme Court yesterday a commencement was made wi.ih the hearing of undefondeti divorce cases. The Chief Jusico (Sir Robert Stout; presided. OROUCHKR v. CROUCHES.

Proceedings opened with the petition of Edith Henrietta Croucher against. Martin Oroucaer, on the ground of misconduct. The parties had been married for 10 years, and there were live children 01 the union. On the respondents return from the front, the petitioner intercepted /'correspodndence addressed to the respondent at his military address, and readdressed by the military authorities to New Zealand.

The petitioner, for whom Mr J. A. Scott appeared, was granted a decree nisi, with costs. Respondent was ordered to pay £3 per weed alimony until further notice. SMITH v. SMITH.

Emily Catherine Smith (Mr A. H. Barnett) stated that she was married in XlKhi, and had lived at Wellington and Pahiatua. in I'Jif petitioner and her husband went to Wanganui for a holiday, and la.er he sold up the homo? and lelt her with .no means of subsistence. Since that time the husband had been “carrying on," a'nd the only support she received consisted of a lew shillings. She was now earning u sort of living by cleaning oaicca. > ' A witness corroborated petitioner’s testimony’, and His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. Cos.s were allowed on the lowest scale. MORRIS’v. MORRIS.

Mr H. F. O’Leary appeared for Ellen Isabeil Morris, who sought dissolution of her marriage with James Morris, bushman, of Kaurimu, on the ground desertion. The- parties were mamed m 1903, and there were two children. The respondent left his wife in 1911, and had not been .seen by her since. A decree nisi was grained. WIGG v. AVIGG.

Elizabeth Wigg (Mr H. F. O’Leary! petitioned for a divorce from Reuben Wigg on the ground of desertion. Married in 18th), tue parties had four children. The trouble commenced in 1911 at Waimea, where a family “row” resulted in husband and wife parting company. She had written to her husband asking him to take her back. bu. he refused. She had taken two children with her, and had to keep herself by means of housework.

A. decree nisi was granted on the usual conditions. ■ ' BALDWIN v. ' BALDWIN. • Misconduct was alleged in the of Janies Baldwin (Mr Jb.. F. O’Leary; v. Angelina Baldwin. Evidence was given that petitioner had been in-camp and continued live with his wife up to sts. or seven weeks i ago. - He had been shown certain letters, and as a result Uad charged Ins -wiie- witn carrying on vvi.-h an ex-soldier named Thompson. Respondent admitted' her guilt, and the. parties ceased to live together. The usual decree was granted. JUDD v. JUDD. A decree nisi was granted in the case in which Helen - Judd proceeded against Arthur Stanley Judd. Petitioner, . foi whom Mr H. F. O’Leary appeared; stated that she was married to the respondent in 1901, and the parties resided at Carterton, - but had, lived apart for the past eight years. Petitioner had found a compromising letter amongst her husband’s xi° sses " sions. ' i Aftor hearing further evidence, His Honour granted the usual decree. OLDHAM v. OLDHAM. “The respondent is a silent drinker,’’ said Mr P. H. Putnam, counsel for Anna Caroline Oldham, who sought a divorce from Arthur ..Oldham. The parties were married in 1903, and there were four children. Since 1912 respondent had been drinking very : heavily, and the grounds of the petition were drunkenness, cruelty, and failure to support. For the past five years petitioner had had to earn her own living, and was at present employed as a waitress in a cafe. . She explained that the drinking went on in the. home, and not in the public bar.

A decree nisi was granted. TOWNBND v. TOWNEND

The allegation in the case in which Rennie Alberta ; Townend (Mr H. F. O’Leary) proceeded against Francis Frederick Townend was respondent’s misconduct with another woman. It was shown that the parties were married in 1913, and had not lived together for the past two years. The decree nisi was granted. LANE v. LANE.

A decree was also granted in the case of Frederick William Lane v. Olga Matilda Lane, it being shown that the respondent had misconducted herself with the respondent in the Townend case. RIORDEN r RIORDEN.

Fanny Laura Itiorden, a young woman, for whom Mr H F. O’Leary appeared, sought a divorce on the grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruelty. "Petitioner said that her husband, Timothy James R.orden, worked on the railway, but lost that position in consequence of his drinking habits She was seriously threatened on several occasions, sometimes with a gun and a raaor. Petitioner had had to sow to keep . the house going over since she was married.

Kis Honour granted a decree, NIXON v. NIXON.

Charles Butter Nison, who was at the front for some time, stated that while ho was away he heard reports that his wife was not behaving as she should. Sortie time after his return Nison confirmed his suspicions. Bo ascertained that his wife bad for some time been living with a man named Murray, who was recently sent to jail on a charge of stealing tools belonging to Nixon.

The petitioner, for whom Mr O’Leary appeared, was granted the usual decree.

WOOLLEY r. WOOLLEY

Desertion was tho ground of the petition for divorco by Edward John Woolley (Mr J. A. Scott) against Jane Caroline Woolley. Petitioner was a carpenter, and was married to the respondent in 1885. For reasons which he could not ascertain his wife bad left him, and had declined to be

a party to a reconciliation. A witness was called to show that'there was no possibility of the parties evei agreeing again. A decree was granted. Further undefended divorce suits will be beard to-day. ;