DECREES IN DIVORCE.

NZ Truth, Issue 63, 1 September 1906, Page 6

DECREES IN DIVORCE.

A HOT DAY'S WORK FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

Errant Husbands and Wicked Wives.

Urgeat atid Williag David- Grintoft •

Sools His Wife aid Her Wituess to Make it Btt Against -Hits;

'Undefended suits, as usual, coinpris}ied the main part of the divorce doI'angs at the Wellington Supreme Court i sittings, during the last two days, ;.over which Chief Justice Stout has -.presided. Thursday ' was divorce day 'and. nearly two dozen of matrimonial mistakes were corrected m what seemied to he an incredibly short space of f .time, which may be accounted for by I .the fact that the Chief Justice was • extremely pushed for time, kaviag a 'busy session ahead at Wanganui next .week, mi n addition to which . was the ■.circumstance that all the cases were simple, short if not sweet, and - very ielear. Most couples were unhitched m, "half the time it took the parson to tie Hhem. There was moreover, strange to say. a remarkable absence of tears i- aM tribulation on the part of fair ■• and fragile petitioners, which ' may probably be accounted for by the fact, that no time was cut to waste, and .thus pumping operations were necessarily restricted.

: A Boer war •hero, named GeorgeWilliam Sullivan, a member of the Ninth Contingent, and' at present .'<*x•piating a crime of rape by a five; years'; "stretch", m Auckland gaol,, was respondent m a suty instituted :byhis wronged and youag, wife, Mary .'Jane Sullivan,: who sought her free'.dom from the lascivious farm-burner on the grounds of adultery arid desertion.' Mr Wilford explained, that' . though the crime for which Sullivan was now m his, proper place was a ground for divorce, the wife could not •bear the expense of proving it, and bad to fall bapk, on other acts of -adultery, committed while the Ninth .-Contingent was camped near Auckland, m March r 1902. This was proved by another <• Boer-baiter, from whose evidence it. was gathered -that' Sullivan was a holy terror with the' girls, and never wanted for female* companionship .and consolation iri<(those warlike days. One particular? •■"garrison hack* had l a peculiar charm, -for the bog-trotter, and he ina4joast-' Mil moment had described her to his' -comrades m arms as being "a -goodr ■\thing." This unmanly boast, . to-^ -gether with- the- sworn fact -that vthe* "convicted female ravisher was seenriri a, compromising position with ;"the -godd thing," was quite sufficient to; tjustifythe granting of a decree nisi,. •fto be made absolute ia three months, •tthe wronged wife being ?given the^cus-i Itody o£ her two young, children.

"Why Smith left home' 1 was 'moti -made clear m the case of Annie JonesSmith v. Charles Thomas Smibh. 'Over five years ago, Charles Thomas> j«wa* a" canvasser m a Canterbury \ '•town ami on April 3, 1901, he left; 'Iris wife and child to go, as he said;,* ito Invercargill, and since then she^ lias had 1 to battle along on her ownv ,as stewardess on- the s.s. Rotoma-. ihana, and, though she had; travelled some, sihe had never heard tidingS'Of; tier goor wandering one. If he ever" comes back he will learn- that lie has no longer a wife, as. a^ decree 'nisi, to* (be made, absolute invtfhree monsfchs,; was granted.

John Robert- Cole, a* .paperhanger,^ t>! Masterton, for whom- Mr Herdman .appeared, some" time ago got an orJder against Jenny, his wife, for the* •restitution of conjugal .rights^ Jenny wasn't having arty, apparently,. so-here trefusal has lost her a husband. He» be a free roan* three months Jience, with the right to»establish /resh rights where^tfeey/ll 'be more^ appreciated. Edward .Stansilaus Sasd'orookdrives a doctor about tcwn, and to Book at him, one would* Warily, think tiis matrimonial veature fwitih Dorothy, m December, 1902, had, duringc subsequent years, nurig fiLke a millstone around his neck. They had Jived together m- Wellmgiton and had one child. Over a year ago, his rnissiis, without cause, left him m the-, flurcli. A private] detective tfoimd her' giving with a mart named . , Burke, , whose name Jshe^ad taken, in»«'Jacob's ' place. When? -acquainted with, -the fact {that divorce proceedings were to be instituted against; her, she murmured /that it was all right and that she Sdid not irrtend to defend. The path having been made easy a decree nisi, /to be moved absolute, m November next, will, as far as Sandbrook's matrimonial -affair is coHcersaed,! put an end to his misery.

Sarah Kirkland, a wMle back, got an order for the restitution 1 of conjugal rights, against Alfred Kirkland, as. also, did Alice Harrison against (Job Ha,rris*>n. Alfred was aot willing and Jc/b was not patient (jnougfr ito renew frelatioirship with theis respective yives, so now thefir chances are gone 'forever. .

George" Alexander Brewor, a gardener, of Petone, married) Jane Reibecca :on Sept. 15, 1900, and now regrets; it. Some time aftdr marriage his y#fe slipped from graco, and he forgave her unchastity. T/ais forgiveness was thrown away on. the worthless woman, who, last Ap"ril, cleared away altogether, and a private 'tec found, her living m Tennyson-street, Wellington, with a man named Merewether, under the name of Moore. When apprised of the fact that a petition for divorce had been filed, she was not sorely grieved but wished .George A. to hurry up. and get it »ver as quickly a s possible. No time .was wasted m. granting) a decree nisi. The suit Sarah Scolit Greeks versus (George E. Greeks -was the star turn of the day. The pair are an elderly couple, m fact are £',ramlmother ,stml grandfather. .Mr.Sken^tt appeared for the wom-an and her ground for seeking a divorce was aduiltery. The pair were married on Dec. 20, 1875. In March, 1905, they separated, the cause being one Dolly Devon, a slip of a girl, for whom the wld reproibate entertained a burning passion. He indulged m his pornic rpranks at Porirua with Dolly, and "tfas next heard* ot_4a-WgJii»s£Qn,^htfce^the. .old

'un was. going it 'pretty, .swifts wittf" a* girl named Lena Stadden. So strong and willing did he make it with Lena, that Mrs Greeks herself was a y witness to an act of adultery. Lena was installed m a room m a house m Moleswort/h-street, where she gave birth to a still-born child. Greeks must have been a regular high-flier, as Lena told her landlady that she expected thab he would marry her. The landlady of the Molesworth-street establishment, after discovering the condition Lena was m, expressed her regret at having taken her. m, but having her there, like a dear old soul, was not inclined to be so iinwoman- | like as to turn her out. Then it whs she asked Lena if that "man" was goinp; to marry her. "Man, did I call him," she sneered when m the wit-ness-box ; "I did not know then that he was a grandfather." A decree nisi was granted, with costs . against the respondent. - • j

| Mr Wilford appeared 'for Albert | Montagu Luttrell, who petitioned for j a dissolution of his marriage with Elsie Grace Luttrell.' This pair were made dne at Hobart, Tasmania, a few years back. •A i bo\it four years ago the couple came to New Zealand, and Luttrell went; to work at Wangamai, where "the snake m the grass," Benjamin Skelton, appeared on the scene. It was the old story. She preferred Ben to Albert, and as the 'husband iiad secured letters coi-cbed m loving terms from the missus to Ben, he thought it good enough to divorce her. She is now back with her .mother m Tasmania, and will be free "to marry Ben three months hence.

Ernest Augustus Little, for whom Mr Herdman appeared, took Rose Elizabeth for better or for worse, on April 16, 1895, and subsequent events it was for the worse. There • were four children by the marriage. : .After ten years of wedded bliss the : another of four conceived an attaoh- , jinent for a man named Flaw, at if Blenheim. She tieglepted home, hus- : i? band an-d children, and evidence was tcalled to • prove that since she left her r '.husband she had given birth to ani other infant, of which the petitioner was not father. Though a guilty , 'wife, she made a demand for two of ; her four children, but the Law was . against her. A decree nisi was granted. <

, Alfred , Freeman Anstis sought / a l , .dissolution of his marriage with Mary Alice Anstis on the ground of adul-. tery with Ronald McNab, at Master- i ton and Feilding. Mary Alice has a., separate account of her own and went :j punting at the various race-meetings .and, while at Masterton recently, she ;fell m with McNab, and the pair put: nip at.Serimgequr's Hotel as Mr and 'jMrs McNab- A decree nisi was jeraated.

A drunken wife, who-neglected hus•rband and children, m the person of :Martha Ann Bar'sdley, was respondent ■to the petition filed by Henry Bardsiiey. This was a painful case. The parties were married on Nov. 23, 1880, and used to live at Crofton. First the unfortunate woman indulged m secret drinking habits ; the truth became too apparent and she eventually became a hopeless drunkard. Bardsley's home became a hell ; everything' she could lay her hands on was pawned, and she drifted from bad 'to worse. Repeated police court convictions followed. On April 1 last she promised m writing to give up her drunken habits, but it was useless. The Chief Justice, m granting a decree, said it was hopeless to expect 1 that the woman would reform; the use of alcohol had deprived her of all will power, but he thought some provision would be made for her maintenance. . George Cock had his matrimonial shackles knocked off at the request of Harriet Cock, at present earning her own living as a domestic servant. Since the marriage m August, 1896, they had lived together m Auckland, New Plymouth and Wellington. He was a fearful drunkard and had knocked her about dreadfully and had been very cruel. to her. In fact Cock was a beastly old rooster not fit to rule the roost m a Chinaman's chicken run. Kathleen Grinton v. David Grinton .was the next suit decided. This pair were very happy on December 13, 1893. when Dave promised all sorts of things at the hymenal altar. Five years later his conduct was ( so bad that a magistrate ordered ' him to pay for his wife's and child's support. This order he ignored, and she had not seen him since 1898, though she had heard that he had taken up with , another woman at, Martinborough. Peter Walters, bootmaker, was the missin" link. He supplied evidence to the effect that he knew Grinton had a lady living with him whom everybody/ hoped and believed was his wife. Before coming into the court to give evidence the witness had seen Grinton outside m the passage and he told him that he wanted to get rid of Mrs Grinton and hoped that he (Walters) would make it as rou-gh as he^could for him, so as to make matters the more easy. He admitted that he was still living with "that" woman who was said to be a housemaid at a very tonev cit" hotel. He had also asked his wife, whom he met m the court corridor, to ''make it hot for him." A decree nisi, to be made absolute m three months was the verdict ; and now Dave ought to do the square thinn- by his beloved Martha.

On July 4,' 18S5, Charles Howat led Sophia Harriet to the altar. Up till five years ago he made the best of it. Then he cleared out without rhyme or reason. There are no children and "Sophy" wants him back. So an order for the restitution of conjugal rights was issued against him. Looks as if Chawles had gone dead cold on Sophia and her conjugal rights.,

Cursed with a drunken wife, who has been convicted of drunkenness and theft m London, Robert William Munro, a mariner, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Maud Mary Barnett. She is somewhere m England,- and Munro is domiciled m New Zealand. This case, it was said, had "been on the stocks" for 18 months. He got his divorce. Mary Ann Whitburn was eighteen years of age when, at Dunedin, on. March 2, IS9B, she took m, as life partner, James Henr^ Whitburn. He turned out a worthless drunkard, and eventually deserted her, leaving her to earn her own living; as a waitress. He treated her brutally, she told Mr Luckie, who 1 appeared for her, and is how living with another woman, whose name was given as Maud Melford, m Frederick-street. When Jas. Henry was informed that ■ his wife was going for a divorce, he said she could do as she liked, as he did not intend to defend • himself and besides, being father to a cmldthe "other woman" had given birth to, he thought it was only right he should stick to her. He, can- have her for ■ever, if so disposed, when three months pass by. . . ;. •.,-,• Another wronged wife was Mary Agnes Day, who, with Mr Herdman's assistance, told her tale of matrimonial woes while united to Frederick Wra. Day, a commercial traveller, of Wellington. This couple were married m Sydney on June 26, 1905. They have three children and came to New Zealand m 1902. He was periodically^ away from her and she learned of 'his intimacy with a young girl at Blenheim, who had given birth to a child. She taxed him with adultery and ' he , admitted it. She had not lived with him since, though he had sent her money. A decree nisi was granted, with costs against the respondent.