LONG LIST OF DIVORCES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 903, 21 February 1930, Page 1

LONG LIST OF DIVORCES

Court Severs Marital Bonds

many undefended petitions

Heavy Auckland Session

rILLUSIONBD husbands and wives crowded the Bupreme Court today seeking- release from their unhappy marital bonds. Sixty-four undefended petitions were set down for hearing*, and many and varied were the stories of infidelity and domestic disruption told to Mr. Justice Herdman and Mr. Justice Smith.

The story of a wife who returned to England because slie did not like SpW Zealand was related by Peter C. iioiway (Mr. Herman), who sought an order for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Dorothy N. at Wolverhampton, in May. i»‘3 petitioner said he and his wife 11-ft for New Zealand the same month. Settling down in Auckland, they lived here until April 23. 1927, when his wife Jiled for England on a visit to her '.-rents. He corresponded with her, hut 12 months after she had been away m wrote announcing her intention of -ot returning. He wrote urging her •pturn but without success. What reason did she give for not returning?” asked the Judge. “She doesn’t like New Zealand, lei.jied the petitioner. Aft°r hearing corroborative evidence his Honour made an order that the wife should return to her husband •within 60 days. WIFE'S WEEK-END JAUNTS Quarrels arose over my wife’s «oing out at nights, and then she be£an making week-end visits.. On one occasion, she was away on a week-end trip but when she returned she retused to tell me where she had been. 1 ’ Thus William Patrick Cummings .Mr. Thwaites) explained why his vife, Grace Lesley Cummings left home, in support of his petition for dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of desertion. Petitioner said he married in November. 1916, and after quarrels over liis wife’s conduct, she declared she was fed up” and intended leaving home. This she did. A decree nisi was granted. AUSTRALIA PREFERRED

Separation was cited by Edward Ernest Weston (Mr. Lennard) as a reason for divorce from liis wife, Lizzie Weston.

Petitioner said lie married in February, 1914. On July 31, 1922, lie and his wife obtained a deed of separation. His wife then kept a boardinghouse at Tauranga, and in -consequence of information he received he proceeded to Tauranga and taxed liis wife with misconduct with a man named James Robertson. This was not denied. His wife afterward went to Australia as Mrs. Robertson. After hearing corroborative evidence his Honour granted a decree nisi. BROUGHT BACK BY POLICE “The only time he came back was when he was brought back by the police,’’ said Ruby Rebecca Orange (Mr. Matthews), in applying for a divorce from her husband, Frederick Henry Orange. Petitioner said that in January, 1923, her husband left Auckland and did not return. Petitioner got a maintenance order against him, but since 1923 he had only paid £7. For failing to pay maintenance he had served terms of imprisonment. A decree nisi was granted. FRIEND OF FAMILY!

The story of a wife’s infidelity concerning a friend of the family was told by Herbert Alister Pope (Mr. Schramm), who petitioned for dissolution of his marriage with Violet Maude Pope on the ground of adultery. Harold Kenneth Nicholson was cited as co-respondent. Petitioner said lie had taxed liis wife with misbehaviour with Nicholson and she had admitted it. He then obtained a confession of misconduct from Nicholson before a J.P.

She prefers living in Australia.” This was the explanation of Charles Edward Beddoes (Mr. Stevens) of the departure of bis wife, Beatrice T. Beddoes, against whom ho sought an jrder for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner said he had been marled in Sydney in 1920, and had been iving in Auckland since 1925. An order requiring the wife to reurn in 14 was made. THRASHED HIS WIFE

A decree nisi was granted. WIFE WENT—FURNITURE TOO A shock awaited Frederick Walter Breed when he returned home one day in January to find his wife gone and his furniture sold. Breed related these circumstances when he sought an order for restitution of ccnjugiii rights against his wife, Kathleen Phyllis May Breed. Petitioner said the marriage took place in July, 1919, and he and his wife lived happily until December, 1928. His wife then went on a holiday visit to her parents at Porangahau, and returned to him early the following year. Three weeks later he came home one day and found both his wife and furniture had disappeared. He had written his wife asking her to return, but she had refused. An order requiring his wife to return within 21 days was made. COULD NOT KEEP HIMSELF

When Frances Mildred Hall remonstrated with her husband in June last year that he was too intimate with * girl living on a neighbouring farm, te thrashed her, so she left home. Mrs. Hall gave this evidence in supjort of her suit for dissolution of her carriage with Albert Garnet Hall, on he ground of adultery. Petitioner said «he was married on August 27, 1921, <nd they had three children. After oeing thrashed by her husband in June ast year, she left home. Her husband admitted he had misconducted him*elf with a girl of a. neighbouring Wme, and she discovered in one of his Irawers a letter from the girl addressed “My darling Bert.” Witness t ame to Auckland, and since then she recJved a letter from her husband stating he loved the girl, and intended sticking to her. A decree nisi was granted. Custody pf. the children was granted to petiifoner. After six years of married life, HEorace B. Mackley went to Wellington u> And work. His quest was successful, but he did not send for his wife Ip make a home for her. Margaret J. Mackley gave evidence Ml these lines in support of her petition fpr dissolution of her marital bonds on the grounds of desertion. 6hs said she obtained an order for the •ayment of maintenance, but her husband had not paid up, and was now •etween £l5O and £2OO in arrears. After hearing corroborative evidence, ai* Honour granted a decree nisi. ANOTHER WOMAN

When his wife asked Ernest Luellen Williams to make a home for her, a few months after her marriage, he said he was unable to keep himself and then disappeared. Thus, Violet Williams supported her petition for dissolution of her marriage on the grounds of desertion. Shortly after her marriage, in September. 1922, petitioner said that she entered the Auckland Hospital. Coming out in January, 1923, she found her husband had been turned out by his father on account of his drunken habits. After her husband’s disappearance she issued a warrant for his arrest, but it was never executed as he could not be found. A decree nisi was granted. After six years’ married life. Winifred Ellen de Andrad (Mr. Singer) obtained a separation order in 1926 against her husband. John Thomas de Andrad, on the ground of his habitual inebriacy, and failure to maintain. On the existence of this order she was granted a decree nisi. HUSBAND BEAT HER

Stating that her husband. Andrew Davidson Ireland, used to get drunk and then beat her, Jeanie Hunter Ireland (Mr. Singer) applied to be divorced front him Petitioner said she was married on February 24, 1915. In 1921 they came to New Zealand to live, and shortly after they arrived her husband’s habits changed, and he started to drink, sometimes being drunk three or four times a week. Several times petitioner left him. and on one occasion got separated from him by agreement, but on each occasion respondent cante and pleaded with her to return, and she did so. In July. 1928, he became so bad that she left him for ever, although he wrote and asked her to return. A decree nisi was granted. MISCONDUCT ADMITTED

On the grounds of adultery, Mabel Elizabeth Robertson Beatty proceeded against Sydney Jack Beatty for a dis•oiution of their marriage. Petitioner was represented by Mr. Coates. Petitioner said that after their mar*iage they lived at Auckland until lune, 1926, when her husband went 0 Sydney. In January of last year petitioner received a letter, in consequence of which she wrote to her husband charging him with living with another woman. Her husband re--urned to New Zealand in April of Ast year, and was now' living in the Dominion. He had written admitting •h*ing with another woman. A decree nia i. to be made absolute within three Months, was granted. On the grounds of desertion. Ethel •Maud Linkhorn (Mr. Newberry) was granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, against her husband, Charles Percy Linkhorn. Petitioner stated that when they were living at Devonport, her husband was sent to gaol, and when he was released he left Auckland, and had not been traced since. There was one child of the marriage. Corroborative evidence was given by petitioner’s sister. DESERTED BY WIFE Walter Simon Clark (Mr. Ball) proceeded against Leah Piripi Clark on the grounds of desertion. He said tiiay married on August 21, 1923, and hved at Whangaroa and Whangarei. deserted him on January 18, Petitioner said he wanted his wife >o return, and had kept the home ready her since. A decree nisi, to be made absolute la three months, was granted. EXCESSIVE DRINKING Habitual drunkenness and failure to were alleged against her £Usband. John James Walsh. by Maude Walsh (Mr. Simpson). .. , " e were married in 3 918 and since ne beginning of 1919 my husband bef*® to drink tc excess,” said petitioner. said they lived near Palmerston North and her husband used t? liquor sent out to the house. often came home drunk and also .PJJfumed liquor to excess in the home, ha* r° ner le *t him and for some time been earning her own living, decree nisi, to be made absolute in months, w«

On the grounds of adultery, which, petitioner said, occurred shortly after her baby was born. Pearl Aileen Taylor (Mr. Singer) applied for a dissolution of her marriage with William Harold Taylor (Mr. West). Petitioner said she married in May. 1923, and they lived at Hamilton, there being two children of the marriage. In August, 1927, she had reason to suspect her husband and saw him with a woman. She taxed her husband with misconduct and he admitted this. From then on she ceased to live with her husband and, except for some maintenance for the children, had received nothing from him. A decree nisi was granted, petitioner being given custody of the children. A separation order was the grounds on which Marie Ethelind Robertson (Mr. Simpson) obtained a decree nisi against William Robertson. Petitioner said she married in February. 1914, and there were three children of the marriage. Her married life had not been a happy one on account of her husband’s drunkenness and cruelty. In 1925 a separation order was granted and her husband then disappeared. She had not seen him since. Petitioner was given custody of the children. Stating that her husband lived at a boardinghouse in St. Paul Street with another woman as man and wife. LLy Keesing (Mi'. Berman) was granted a dissolution of her marriage with Amiel Isaac Keesing. Petitioner said she married respondent in July, 1925. and they lived at Auckland and Wellington In July. 1927, they came to Auckland to live and in September. 1928 she taxed her husband with living with another womln. Her husband admitted ttoa charge.

A taxi-driver gave corroborative evidence. Adultery and mutual separation for three years were the grounds advanced by Nellie Christian (Mr. Schramm) in support of her petition for dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Lawrence Christian. Petitioner said she was married in March, 1921, and lived with her husband until August, 1926, when a certain confession by her husband resulted in mutual separation. A decree nisi was granted. ORDERS DISOBEYED

Decrees nisi on the grounds of failure to comply with orders for the restitution of conjugal rights -were granted in the following petitions: Chloris Pauline Boyle (Mr. West), against Francis Vivian Theodore Boyle; John Victor McManus (Mr. Kavanagh), against Elsie Georgine McManus; Joseph Redvers Boyle (Mr. Singer), against Annie Rita Boyle; Dora Bowman (Mr. Webb), against Robert Constantine Bowman; George Pearce Jackson (Mr. Butler), against Hilda Jackson; Susan Fitts (Mr. Matthews), against William Francis Fitts; Sydney James Wyatt (Mr. McLiver) against Shirley "Wyatt; Samuel Goodman (Mr. Snedden), against Mary Rosalie Goodman. DIVORCES ON SEPARATIONS. Separation by mutual consent was the ground on which May Overy Hayden (Mr. Snedden) was granted dissolution of her marriage with Stanley Arthur Hayden . Decrees nisi were granted on similar grounds in the following petitions: Flossie Ellen Morton (Mr. Biernacki), against Francis Heiuj Morton; Florence May Gulley (Mr. Matthews), against George Robert Gulley; Josephine Jackson (Mr. Matthews), against John Owen Eugene Jackson; Hilda Coyle (Mr. Schramm) against Thomas Coyle; Jessie Ford (Mr. Alexander), against Robert Ford. Oil the grounds of a deed of separation, decrees nisi were granted Ernest Frederick Aspden (Mr. J. Moody) against Florence Althea Aspden; Alan Archibald O’Neil (Mr. Mason) against Madeline May O’Neil.