DOMESTIC TROUBLES

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20284, 28 August 1937, Page 13

DOMESTIC TROUBLES

DIVORCE DAY AT COURT DECREES GRANTED YESTERDAY Petitions for dlvoroe constituted the principal business before the Supreme Court in Hamilton yesterday. Mr Justice Callan presided. Henry James Santry (Mr E. F. Clayton-Greene) was granted a decree nisi against Graoe Santry on the ground of desertion. Petitioner stated that he was married to respondent in Wellington In 1926. There was one child. In 1933 respondent had left, ostensibly for a holiday with her mother in Napier, but she had not returned home. He had later been advised by her in a letter that she would not oome back to him. Edith Kate Tookey, of Napier, mother of respondent, gave evidence for the petitioner. Witness said petitioner had been a good husband. She had been far from pleased with her daughter’s conduct. Witness did not know respondent’s present whereabouts. The ohild was In the custody of respondent. Mary Ann Baird (Mr W. J. King) was granted a decree nisi against George William Baird. In evidence, petitioner said the parties had been married In 1917 and there was one ohild of the marriage. Respondent had been a farm manager and they had worked together as a married couple in the Walrarapa. They had agreed to separate in 1927 since when respondent had contributed adequately to the support of the child, but not to the support of petitioner. Looked Out By Husband Hinekura Mary Marjorie Ngahiraka (Mr J. F. Strang) was granted a decree nisi, with custody of the three ohildren of her marriage and costs against Horl Ngahiraka. Petitioner stated that she married respondent in 1929. There were three children. Petitioner had been forced to work to keep herself and the children as respondent wasted his money on drink. Petitioner had been locked out of her home by respondent in 1934 for a night, following which a solicitor had tried to ” patch things up ” between the parties but without sucoess. Their married life had been unhappy and they had entered into an agreement to separate, stated Joyoe Maxwell Wallace (Mr R. D. McFarland), when petitioning for divorce from Arthur Maxwell Wallace (Mr J. F Fltz-Ueraldi). She had lived apart from her husband since the drawing up of the agreement, said petitioner. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, with the custody of the ohild was granted. Although an order for the restitution of conjugal rights had been made by the court his wife had not returned, stated George Charles Daubney (Mr A. Potter) in petitioning for the dissolution of his marriage with Annie Lilian Daubney. Petitioner was granted a decree nisi. On the ground of separation, Stanley Knox (Mr Strang) was granted a decree nisi against Iris Gwendoline Knox. In evidence, petitioner stated that he had married respondent in 1919. A deed of separation was executed in 1932 under whioh petitioner agreed to pay maintenance in respect to his wife and ohildren. Frederick Charles Richmond (Mr King) was also granted a decree nisi, on the ground of separation, against Emily Phyllis Richmond. The parties were married In 1-929, stated petitioner, and there was one surviving child. The parties had agreed to separate four years ago. Did Not Live Together. Dulole Iris Clark (Mr F. J. Newbery), who was granted a decree nisi, with costs, against William Clark, said she married respondent in 1934, but they had not lived together at any time. Within a fortnight of their marriage, respondent had said It was a mistake and suggested separation, to which petitioner had agreed. Frederick Joseph Richard Bryan (Mr P. H. Watts), was granted a decree nisi against Charlotte Bryan, Harry Leonard Morgan being cited as corespondent. Petitioner was also granted costs against Morgan. Petitioner stated that he had married respondent in 1913. There were no children of the marriage. The couple had lived first at Auckland and later at Puriri, where petitioner leased a hotel for some time. On leaving Puriri, petitioner had been deserted by his wife, who went to live at Paeroa. At that time petitioner did not know of any other man In the case, but later he learned that respondent and Morgan were living as man and wife at Paeaoa. James Henry Skipper (Mr F. A. de la Mare), was granted a decree nisi against Rachel Emma Skipper. The parties, stated petitioner,, had married In Victoria In 1924, and lived together for over four years, after which petitioner had oome to New Zealand seeking work, on the understanding that respondent would follow almost immediately. She had not done so and petitioner had not seen her since. There were no children. Violet Thomas (Mr. E. M. Maokersey) was also granted a decree nisi against John William Thomas, and interim custody of the younger child of the marriage! which took place, stated petitioner, in 1920. There were two children. Petitioner had secured a separation order In 1934. Respondent was paying maintenance to petitioner. Husband’s Oruelty. Lilian Catherine Annan (Mr. W. W. Meek) was granted a decree nisi against William Alexander Annan (Mr. E. F. -Clayton-Greene) on the grounds of cruelty. Petitioner stated that she married respondent in 1921. About three months after her marriage, petitioner had discovered respondent’s addiction to liquor. She had had to call a doctor, who stated that respondent was suffering from delirium tremens and ordered him into hospital. They had later had a fish business in Auckland but they had lost it through respondent’s drunkenness. When drunk respondent had frequently committed acts of cruelty and often used bad language, lie had frequently struck her. They had stayed together until two years and four months ago, when petitioner left respondent. Marion Gordon Mcßae, married, mother of petitioner, said her daughter had constantly complained of her husband’s treatment of her since their marriage in 1921. Witness had also seen respondent commit acts of oruelty on petitioner.