SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 February 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Hie Honor Mr Justice Chapman) DIVOBOE PROCEEDINGS. MeKENNA v. M«KENNA. Euphemia Louisa McKenna (Mr T. B. Crump, Eltliam) petitioned, for the nullity of her marriage with the respondent (Robert McKenna) on the grounds of bigamy. Counsel for petitioner stated that a service of marriago was gone through by the parties at Wyndham, Southland, on August 27, 1912. They went to N.S.V. in October of the same year, and some time after petitioner returned to New Zealand on account of her health, respondent remaining in Australia, Some time afterwards, hearing nothing from her husband, she ascertained through the agency of the police that her husband had a wife living in Belfast, Ireland. Petitioner got into touch with her husband's first wife, Margaret or Maggie McKenna. Her evidence had ber-n taken on commission and was filed. Evidence was given »y petitioner, and the necessary documents put in. A decree rnfu was granted, to be made &h=o!ute in three months. An order for costs was made against respondent HiVES v. EiVES. Eves, farmer, Auroa (Mr P. , ODea, 'Hawera) petitioned for a divorce from his wife, tieorgina Margareta Eves, on the grounds of desertion. Air O'Den stated that petitioner and respondent were married 011 July Ist, 1902, at Nelson, and lived together until December ~Li, litl2. The respondent then loft petitioner and has remained away ever siuce. She left with another mm;, and when served with the petition was still living with the same ma.il at Te Kuiti. There had been three children of the marriage, and respondent had takon one away and petitioner had the other two. The petition apylied for the custody of the children, bik it was r"w to allow respondent to keep the child she took away. A defence to the petition had been filed but since abandoned. After hearing tne evidence ms Honor rrninted a decree nisi, to be made absolute. As petitioner had the children iv, ,v.iw sj to custody was considered necessary. MERCER v. MERCEii. Edward Thomas Mercer, wooi-classer, Waitara, for whom Mr P. Q'Dea appeared, applied for a divorce from Ruby Mercer 011 the grounds of adultery \v*di Thomas Evans (co-respondentj Petitioner gave evidence to the effect that the parties were married 011 January 20, 1001, and had three children Tiiev lived together until August 1", 1017, when respondent left petitioner st "(I had no: returned fa April, May or June last she went to Wellington and there or elsewhere committed adultery with the co-respondent Evans. Witness received a letter from respondent on October £8 last, in vhieh she made a confession of her conduct and admitted co-habiting with the co-respondent. She urged him i'o divorce her as she could never live with him as his wife after her conduct with Evan? A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, with costs ngabut respondent. HODDER v. HODDER. Arthur Hoddcr, railway ganger, Te Wera (Mr J. V Nicholson), petitioner for a divorce from his wife, Jennie Kate Hodder, ou the groands of desertion. Counsel stated that the petitioner and respondent were married in England in March, 1599. They came to Queensland wueru they staved for auout nine months, and then came to New Zealand, where they lived together until about Maren 14, 1910, when respondent left her husband and had not come back •ince Mr Nicholson pointed out that although tlia grounds of the petition Wei': desertion, the respondent had been inn.;, ir aduken practically the whole perod cf the desertion. >She had offered to come bc.-k to petitioner, but the offer had been rejected on account of the adultery Mr Nicholson claimed that tie refits] to take respondent back did not annul the grounds of desertion Evidence was given by petitioner, in tiii: course 01 which he stated that on one occasion his wife was going away for & holiday and he discovered that a single man named Quinlan who lived, opposite petitioner's house was going away for a holiday at the same time. He urged his wife not to go for n few days tut she disregarded his wishes, and went away as arranged, Qninlau going away on the same tram. Quintan returning iu a few days, and shortly after went away again. His wife had never K-tuined since the.. There was one son, who lived with pcMuonci He was now 1C years of age. Petitioner and his son went on one occasion to Springfield nnd found respondent living with Quinlan They went to the hou::t • about nine o'clock one night, and saw Quinlan. Respondent at first declined to see them, lut she was brought out of the bedroom by Quinlan. They had a few words and then Quinian ordered them out of the place, at Mrs Hodder's suggestion, getting down a gun at the same time, and petitioner and his son considered it advisable to "get out,"' as the. ware a bit frightened: About a month later Mrs Hodder end Quinlan went to Australia and petitioner had not s®en his wife si;;v- <h»:i. She had written a letter 10 : r ".1 hearing that ; d'V">;.'r proc'i-d;"f' ; i ' w.ying she did not blame him afle? what she ),ad done She vii'died the could see petitioner r-nd Jack (the son) again before the final She expressed a hope ttat he had not been hurt st the wnr f,nd" said ihs.i. it ever petitioner changed , his mind she would be willing to remain , his wife Petitioner did not answer . the letter ? ?.'vidolize was also given br tl.o son of L potltlor.e.- and the court cramcd a de- ! proo nisi, to be made cibsoluv i.u three , Jr.orjbs TIEO3AU> ' 1 iu.«.H ; :„,l'. In . h' above case, whicL vPi a petition "by the husband (John Tieobaidl for whom Mr A. H Johnstone appeared, for a divorce from his wife (Kliz* Jane , Theobald! for whom Mr J. L Weir (ElItham) appeared, it was stated the parties had agreed to enter into a deed . of separation, and Mr Weir applied for r an order of dismissal i. The order was granted, with coats on " the highest scale. 4 FOX v. EOX. " Henry Thomas Eotf (Mr H. R. Tiil'v ing) petitioned for a divorce from Etbe Mav Fov. on the ground of desertion Mr Billing applied to have the cita tien of th» eo-MBpandwit struck out e;

he had ilied since the time of service, This was granted. Petiuuiier stated he was marired to his wife on August -25, 1913. They lived together al jn or man by, Manaia and near Wanganui jintil November, fr9l4. when respondent left him. She returned. Lilt after six weeks wont away again, taking all the money that was in the house at the time. She refused to come back and petitioner enlisted and went to the war m Auguvt, 1915. He returned '■ in March, 1918, and found liis wife living with a man uauicd James Hunter-, She refused to come hack to petitioner on Hi-rmmt of iier living with Hunter. Lena Gardener, mother of respondent, gave evidence in. which she indignantly denied that her daughter and Hunter h:u< lived together as man and wife- She admitted, however, thaf they had stayed in her house at Wanganui and had slept in the same room. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. AIcQUAY v. M'cQUAY. Louisa McQuay, Stratford, (Mr J. C. Nicholson) petitioned for divorce from her husband, Bobert McQuay, on the ground of desertion. Petitioner stated she was married to respondent in February, ISS4. They had five children, of whom three were ( still living, nil being over 21 years of . age. They lived together at Oneliunga for About twelve years but had a very unhappy experience on account of re- j spondeut'a excessive drinking habits. He provided no proper means of support, | and petitioner had to support herself and her children. They then went to Stratford and matters so far as respon- ' den was concerned became worse. Peti- I turner opened a nursing home asameanß ' of a livelihood. She and her husband entered into a deed of separation and he ■ went away—she did not know where. Tn January, 1911, he came back to Strat- 1 ford and was given another c'nance. They ] live:! toseth-.r fo,- about a lortnignt, but petitioner found she could not carry ' on the nursing with respondent about. He went away to Te Aroha, and asked her to accompany him, as he had a business there and a home for nei* She went up in a. few weeks, and found that the business he had was that of a bones and bottles merchant, and ne had no Home. bur. they lived at u boarding how She hau no idea o: what he earned, and he had not given up his drinking habits. lie did give her a new wedding ring in token of his intentions to t reform. It was agreed that tiiey should < return to Stratford, witness going first. < Respondent never came back, but sent j for money with which tn pav his debt', i He never sent any money for the sui>- < port of petitioner or her children, anlwitness had maintained herself and chit- j dreil. * i Evicienc-e was also given hy liwria , Eliza MeQuade, a daughter of petitioner, ( onil Robert Hugh Cameron, «lerk, Stratford. i His Honor granted a tte;'ree nisi, to , he made absolute in .three month?, with j costs on the lowest ?ea!c , SHARKOCK v. SEAfrftOCK J Edith Selina Sharrock (Mi D. Hut- , flien) sought divorce from her husband, ] Herbert James Sharrock, on'the ground ; o£ adultery Evidence was given by petitioner to tin- effect that the marriage took place on July G, IS 10, and that the parties iiv.d together for over four jews—first at Stratford and later at Tariki There had been two children. In March last, between 21st and 28th, witness was stnjing with friends at Stratford. fcjhe went to Ha.vera and innde some inquiries' conoernins her husband, and found that in- had been staying there at the Dominion Hotel, and that the names of Mr and Mrs Sharrock appeared in the list of boardere staving in the hotel on several dates named. She had n-it lived' with her husband for the past three years. Evidence was given by E. F. Trice, i i brother of netitvoner, who said he had made inquiries regarding his brother-in-law. and found that his name appeared in the visitors' book at the Dominion Hotel, Hawera He went upstairs with the proprietor's son to Pharroek's room, and he came out and witness heard a woipan's voice in the room His Honor raid that although the evidence was strongly suspicions ihcre was no actual proof Anyone "light have put the names in the hotel book and the woman whose vi,irv> was heard in Slisrrock's room nv'.H have been there for ( perfeetiv lawful t.irnnses Vlie case wm aliowed to stand over ; till next session APPEALS. ! Argument was heard in the appeals Patrick Buddy (Mr. H. K. Billing) v. Eugene Joyce (Mr. P O'fiea) against tlje decision of Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at Hawera There were two appeals, but as the same principle was involved in each they were considered together Mr. Billing stated that the cases related tn decisions in connection with some "licensing cases in which the licensee and the barman of the Okaiawa hotel were concerned Pour young men had gone to the Okaiawa hotel at about 8 p.m on August 27 last The licensee's son had served them with drink :r. ihe bar, the young men each treating the others in ■ turn. Four (•barges had been brought against the licensee of wiling after hours, of selling to perso-: : apparently under the age of 21 years. of permitting "shouting" Pour charge v-we also brought against the barman J'or permitting "shouting" and for serving persons apparently under 21 vear..i of age. It was proved that none of the young men lodged or resided in the hotel The licensee, on coming into li e bar after the drink:: had been supplied immediately ordered the young men oil' the premises. It was claimed that the licensee did not know that the men were on the premises or that they were being supplied with liquor, until he found them in the bar There had been no proof as to who actually admitted the young men to the hotel The Magistrate convicted the barman lor felling to persons apparently under the age of 21 years and for permitting "shouting," but dismissed the informations under the War Regulations against the licensee on thi> ground that he- was not responsible regarding the "shouting" lor the acts o! his servants. The othci information'! were, dismissed, undei Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act, on the ground that the licen-. see was morally without blame, and that the offence was trivial under the circumstances, and it was not expedient to inflict punishment therefore. The question ■ for decision was as to whether the 1 Magistrate had such discretionary powers under the Justices of the Peace Act to ' call the offence trifling. Mr, Billing held ' that having convicted the servant, the whole circumstances could not be regarded as trifling. He pointed out the i restrictions with which the sale of liquor was hedged about, which went to showthat. the legislature regarded breaches of i those regulations as serious and not | p trifling. He pointed out that it had ] been established that a licensee was ! responsible for the acts of his servants. L Mr O'Dea admitted that the responda j eut was liable and could be convicted,

but claimed that the whole question was one of the Magistrate's discretion under the section of Justices of the Peace Act quoted. The licensee bad given his,employees full instructions as to the observation of all regulations, and as the real offender had been punished lie thought there were mitigating circumslit. ,:cs so far as the licensee was concerned. His Honor said he would reserve his decision. The section relied upon had often been applied, but he was not aware that it had been acted upon in regard to any casea under the Licensing Act. IN BANKRUPTCY. Orders for the discharge of bankrupts were made in respect to Win. Maindonald (Mr. R. H. Quilliam), and Michael Joseph liyan and George Ryan (Mr. P. O'Dea). The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.