DIVORCE COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81854, 1 October 1906, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT.

TAUNTON V. TAUNTON. ( On Saturday morning. His Honor : Mr Justice Cooper hoard the divorce anion, Taunton v. Taunton, wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of desertion. Mr Quilliam (Govett and Quilliam) appeared for the petitioner, and Mr flutchen for the respondent. Amelia Maud Taunton, the petitioner, produced a copy of the marriage certificate, the marriage having taken place on April 17th, iScjj, respondent being then 27 years of age and the petitioner 18. Evidence was given that immediately after marriage they visited England, being absent about twelve months. The respondent then took a farm at Manaia. About threo years after marriage, is uSgO, they came to New Plymouth, where her husband took up business as a cycle agent. She lived with her husband for about five years, and until the separation took place. They lived happily together, except with regard to money matters —she had known nothing of her husband's financial position. Remembered making tho acquaintance of a girl, and within a month of that acquaintance was separated from her husband. The girl was a friend of respondent, and ho brought her to his home.She complained to him of her boldness and her familiayfy with him. and repeatedly objected to her coming to the house. He took no notice, and tho visits of the girls continued, lie seemed infatuated with her at tho time. Petitioner threatened to tell the girl's father; the girl was about 22 years of age. Respondent, was an officer in tho volunteer company, and lie attended an encampment in the Recreation Grounds at die end of January, iqoi. The volunteers stayed in camp at night and attended to their business as usual during tho day. Her husband left home to go to the camp. She went to see him onco at the camp. Then she went on to his office to see him. On the way she saw the father of the girl referred to. Went to her husband's office. "He refused to see me," said the witness, "and throat- , cned to put me out of the office and

knock mc down if I didn't go. He said that I and my friends had tried to ruin die girl." Witness threatened then to go to the girl's father. Did so, overtaking the father on a bridge. Rev. Evans was passing at the time, and she asked him to stop. 11c heard part of the conversation. It was a matter of public notoriety that respondent and the girl's father had a fight just afterwards. Her husband did not come homo to the house after that, sleeping at his business premises. Once she met him in the street, and spoke to him, "He threw mo from him and threatened to knock me down if I didn't leave him at once." She wrote to him repeatedly, asking him to come home. Her friends and relations went to him to get him to return home. He refused. lie made her a small allowance, which he subsequent'y stopped, and witness took proceedings under the Destitute Persons' Act. The petitioner went to England a couple of years ago, and was away still. Before he left she took proceedings to obtain

security for the payment of the money ordered by the court. At the time o| the desertion she lived ; n a house belonging to tho respondent. Left that, as it was sold. Since then she had lived by taking in boarders and going out nursing. The two children lived with her.

Cross-examined by Mr Hutchen: Respondent left her the bulk of the furniture. If the furniture was insured for £2OO, that sum was more than it was worth. For the past five years she had received per week for herself and 16/10 per week for the chK<(ren, paid regularly. She a'so received £1 o a year from her father's estate. Had drawn against the capital of her share as a beneficiary -n the estate. She had beep compelled tp draw to pay her bills, otherwise she would not have done so. Had refused to return anv wedding presents given to him. " What he asked for were articles in daily use. Had said that she would rather see |he?n burned.

Mr Quilliam: What has this to d with ii?

Mr Hutchen : I want to show that the petitioner was not so anxious to effect a reconciliation, but did all in her power to annoy him. 1 lie petitioner: The lie wanted were knives' and' forks,' and such articles, in daily u se, and had lie got them I should" have been put to useless expense in replacing them. His Honor: It shows, at any rate that he was not anxious to return home.

Witness continued that she had never known her husband's financial position. He had complained of her cxtiavagance, but still went on being extravagant himself. Sinco the scpaiation she had had no communication from the respondent. Rev. I'. gyaju» gave evidence fiat he' had known the petitioner and the respondent ever since they came to ew Plymouth. I'hcy were members of his congrega- \\" D - Ho had visited their home, \\ as chaplain of the volunteer company in which respondent was captain, and saw a good deal of him in consequence. Had made more than

one attempt to reconcile tile parties but respondent would not lisej| to any offers of reconciliation, saying he would never return to his wife. fo Mr llutchen : Apart from matrimonial troubles, he knew nothing agamst Taunton.

Mr Hutchen stated that although die jospondent had contributed to the support of the wife and children, he must admit that Taunton was guilty <->1 desertion. Hut hi* hoped the conduct of the respondent had not been such as, in 1 lis Honor's opinion would oausy any discredit to be cast upon him. His Honor said [hero must be a decice nisi, lhore was, he mentioned, no allegation of misconduct on either side. No* doubt the trouble arose from Mrs Taunton objecting Co this girl coming to the house. It was the husband's du(y then m have studied the filings of his wife but instead of that had withdrawn liom co-habitation.. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent had supported his wife, possibly, and probably, to tho extent of "his mean*, His Honor would point out that tho petitioner was entitled to the company oi her husband. It was quite possible thai thero had been faults on both sides. It was the respondent's duty, ho\vny<-r, m have returned to his wife, but he had not done so. remaining absent for over five years, which constituted desertion. A decree nisi would be granted, with costs on the lowest sca'e; the order to be made absolute m three months, and the petitioner to have custody af ihe children tdl rurther order gf the Court.

Mr Quilliam asked about the maintenance of the childien in the future. Mis Honor said thai this., or the mailer of pnividing permanent alimony for the Wife, must be made n open court independently oi the application for the decree absolute. In answer to 11 is Honor. Mr llui''li'T, said lite £)i„i lodged by the respondent wax now nearly exhausted. Mi Otiilliairi stated that applioatinn lor maintenance wou'd be made for the children only; there was no questi 'ii of alimony. MILLAR V. MILLAR.

Millar v. Millar, husband's petition r dissolution of marriage with I'lorence Millar, nee Clark, owing to respondent's refusal to obey an order or the eom-t lor conjugal rights. Petitioner, A}"'x a ndo,'' Millar, bootmaker, of llawera. gave evidence that his wife had refused to return io co-habitation with him. lie had seen nothing of her since the making of the order, though he had ofierce! her money to cnab'e her to return if she so desired, and lie had always had a home reaclv to receive her. Ilis Honor said a decree nisi would be granted, to be made absolute in six months. Mr Wilson asked if Ilis Honor made ir his practice to fix six months. Ilis Honor said it was his invariable ru'e in cases where there had been a refusal to ok:y an order for restitution of conjugal rights, for die reason that he was entirely d : ss.it : slied with (he provisions i f the ■ Legislature in thi* respect, though perhaps be ouglu not to say so. He was of opinion that the cpmmon practice and

interpretation of the sections governing- this matter made it far easier to obtain divorce than had ever been intended by the Legislature. It was possible now for a divorce to bo obtained within twelve months of a marriage, in such a case as this. The parties might disagree in a few months and separate. The next step was to obtain an order for restitution of conjugal rights, which, being' disobeyed, enabled a divorce to be granted. The intention of the Legislature was that five years was the term required to constitute desertion. His Honor said it would be no hardship on the respondent to wait six months if he wished to marry again, and remarked that he did not know of any country, excepting America, where such an easy method of obtaining .'ivorce. was provided by the legislature. TAYLOR V. TAYLOR. The divorce case Elizabeth Taylor v. Wm. John Taylor, wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, was adjourned to next sessions, owing to the illness of the petitioner.