MARITAL TANGLE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 949, 16 April 1930, Page 1

MARITAL TANGLE

BROKEN ROMANCES OF TWO COUPLES DOUBLE DIVORCE The tangled skein of lives of two married couples was unravelled in the Supreme Court today, when the husband in one suit and the wife in the other, had their marriages dissolved, adultery being the ground in each case. Mr. Justice Smith was on the Bench. “UOR the past two and a-half or three years my life was unliappv because of my husband's fondness for another married woman," declared Violet May Kilgour (Mr. McLiver), in support of her petition for divorce from Roy Steadman Kilgour, on the ground of his misconduct. Petitioner was married on June 10, 1924, and lived in Auckland. Her unhappiness culminated in her discovery in her husband's clothes of a letter which he had intended posting to the other woman, at whose home he had been staying a few weeks previously. When witness taxed her husband with adultery, they patched up the quarrel, and in January, 1929, tried to make a fresh start together. It lasted only three weeks, however, as her husband left home again, and even the police could not trace him on a maintenance order. Later, witness learned her husband had gone to Christchurch with ‘he other woman, and on his return here recently he confessed he had been living in adultery. A decree nisi was granted. CURLING WIFE'S HAIR “When I entered the house, after being out gardening one night in June last year, I found my wife sitting in the pantry havi ing ner hair curled by the boarder, and the same night I caught her placing a hot-water bottle in the star guest’s bed. I protested, ! and she left three days later. Thus, James Preston (Mr. Singer), j whose petition for dissolution of his ; marriage with Eileen Leuoa Preston. ] was based on her. adultery. Rov i Steadman Kilgour was cited as co-re-j spondent. Petitioner, who was married on July ! 192 G, said that he and his wife i were quite happy in the well-flirnished i Home he had set up for her About April last year he heard rumours concerning his wife’s conduct with Kilgour, who was then boarding at his home. Witness spoke to his wife, and appealed to her to relinquish her friendship with the co-respondent. A solicitor, F. W. Schramm, whom Mrs. Preston consulted on being served with the petition, produced a written admission of her misconduct. A decree nisi was granted, costs ceing allowed against the co-respon-dent.