SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10423, 14 September 1911, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

MASTERTON—WEDNESDAY. DIVORCE CASES. COLVILLE v. COLVILLE. Amelia A. J. Oolville, of Masterton, petitioned for a divorce fix)in James A. Colrilie, Auckland, on ithe ground of desertion. Mr C. A. Pownail appeared for petitioner, and 'Mr P. L. Soilings for respondent. Petitioner, in evidence, istated that she was a domestic servant. She was married in. Masterton on July I 23rd, 1902. Witness lived at Manaia, with her husband, and he first left her about nine months after, but witness did not know where he had gone until five weeks after Ihe left. In another week her husbandi returned, but again lefit her two or three weeks latter. He left her neither money nor food, and she had to live on turnips and onions. The butchers and bakers would not give her anything (because h-cr ihiushand' had stopped' her credit. Her house and furniture had to ibe isold up, and she entered Ithe .service of the late Mrs> C. A. BownaJil. Her husband returned and made no attempt Jto restore their home. Shortly after j he ag&in left her, while she was an j inmate of a private hospital. He wrote asking witness if she would live with his sister at Lyttelton, to which. silie replied in the negative. Tins was about six years ago. Diuring the. whole of the intervening time she had only received £3 or £4 from the respondent. It was about two years last Easter since she had last- seen her husband. To Mr Hollings: There had been no arrangement for witness" to work with Mrs Pownail just while (her husband went to get work. Her husband wrote occasionally to her. Respondent had never come and asked her to go to a home which hie had at Dannevirke. On one occasion: she said she Would go wc'th Mm when he got a home. Witness "was 'aware that iher husband hiad' a oottagje at Aifredton. She did not know it was furnished. She promised to go up with, him when she had /sufficiently recovered her .strength. She had refused) to go. .andi work for MrKeb- ■ bell 'because she was not strong enough. Her (husband took 411 shiortly after. She was notaware ■ tliat his' break idbwn was caused by her not b,eing with ham. Herbert .William Pownail', * law clerk, said he wast/he licensee of the I Central Hotel, Master ton, in 19023. Witness/ said .that he saw ithe | petitioner when left in the house at Manaia. She wias (then absolutely destitute. He corroborated the evidence of petitioner regarding her health being too badl for 'her to l work. While she was staying with • the latte Mns P!ownaE> witness, was | living in the same house. He was only aware of Oolville having visited hi si wife there on one occasion. Thisi dosed the case for the petitioner. ...... The Oase was at this stage adjourned 1 ito allow 'Mr HoJlings to confer with his client with a view to persuading (him to accept a decree nisi. On resuming, Mi- P. L. Soilings for the respondent said that he did not intend to resist the case further on ituie understanding that no costs |or maintenance w!as claimed. His Honor: That is a very proper decision. I will 'grant the decree nisi, to be made (absolute in three months, no costs or maintenance to he allowed. WARNER V. WARNER. Mabel Jeanettq, AEce Warner, of Featherston, .sought a dissolution of her marriage with Charles [Robert Warner, of Ngahauranga, on the grounds of desertion. Mr C. A. Pownail appeared' for petitioner, and Mr A. R. tßunny for respondent. Ail appearance only had!, been entered by the. respondent, and Mr Bunny therefore intimated^ 1 that he was watching proceedings for respondent. "Petitioner, stated that v she had married respondent .in 1895, suad tißeirn wtere two children by the mar-" riage. In. June, 1904, respondent deserted. Mr Bunny said .that he admitted tie desertion. Mr PiowmaH said that respondent wtas a man in illhealth, and he would noit claim 'costs. ' His Honor granted the decree nisi to be made absolute in three months. HARRIS V. HARRIS. Aliice May Harris, of Martinborough, sought a dissolution of her marriage with Edward George BDarriss, <of Wihakataki, on the grounds of adiultery with Ma Nini, a Majjin, of Waipukurau. Mr Smaiit, instructed by Mr Lavery, appeared) for petitioner, and Mr C. A. Pownail for a'espoYiden.t ' and co-res-pondent. , Evidence was given by J. .G. Williams, labourer, of Martinborough, who hiad been in the employ of respondent from December, 1909, to September, 1910, as to Harris and co-respondent cohabiting on respondent's property. Crossr-examiined 'by Mr Pownail: He had (been arrested' for asaulting Mfr Nini, and fined £lO. The reason for the assault was on account of Ma Nini accusing him. of having told certain things Ito Mrs Harris. Alice May Harris, petitioner, said that she was» married to respondent on May 20th, 1596, and there were three children iby the marriage. They had not lived together for 12 months. Re&pondtent left her at Martinbo rough about July, 1910, and wenit to reside at They had never had a quarrel. She. had. no personal knowledge of herhusband's misconduct; she had oniyheard of it from others. Cross-examined by Mr Pownail: - She Iliad desired to go to Wfcakataki to her husband's, place, but the. latter would not allow her. Monte Anaru, farmer at- ithe East-

(Conf-jcued .on Passe- S:)'

(Continued from Page 5.)

<Ooast, gave evidenoe as to respondent 'being in .the sarnie room at nigjht with Ma Nini at ftuti's house. at Te Ore Ore and at a boarding house in Masiterlton. John Joseph Cotter, liorse trainer, of Master ton j stated that respondent and eo-respondtent stayed at his wfife's boarding house from June 18th to 25th. Part of Ma Nini's board was paid) ; by hterself and part by Harris. Ma Nini came to the boarding house before Harris. Gross-examined) by Mr Pownail: Ma Nini and' Harris never obtained the one (room conjointly. Robert Russell, second-hand dealer, gave evidence aa to watching Piuti's house on March 25th, and seeing Mia Nini in one room and subsequently noticing Hams, in, company with another Maori, leave the house. He had watrihied respondent and co-respondent on a subsequent occasion. Cross-examined by Mr Pownall: He had seen. Harris and Ma Nini together (previously, but could not specify any particular'.d'ate,'a® he, had not previously been intereslted in the matter. Mr Plownali: So you are a secondhand dealer, are you? Witness: Yes. Mr Pownall: Is ithat another name for a private detective? ■Witness : As you like. I do all sorts of (things so long as tthiey iare honest. Mi' Powaiall: I do not say that private detective work is dishonest/ but we do not look uponit with approval. How, imuch did you get ' for .going _'<>ult and watching ; Pttti'-s----house ? 'Witness : Thirty .shillings. Mr Ptownall: Didf you get thirty I shillings' worth of suspicious matter ? \vybness: That is for the Court to i say. Pohiani Haeaea 'and W. Tarnaha«i also gave evidence. Mr PownaM stated that if in the face of 'tlhe evidence it was decided to grant a. decree ' nisi, then he would not g<o on further with the case, ias his client was a cripple, ■and had not sufficient means by which <to collect evidence. His Honor thereupon granted a decree misi, to s ; be .made 'absolute in. t ' three months, with costs on tht or- } dinary scale,

GROVES V. GROVES. Eithel Isabel Groves, of Masterton, sought a dissolution of her marriage with, Gteorge Groves on tihe grounds, of drunkenness, cruelty and desertion. Mr A. R. Bunny appeared; for petitioner, there being no appearance of resipondent. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months.