Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

3 corrections, most recently by annmanley - Show corrections

IN DIVORCE.

(Before Mr. Justice Owen.)

AINSLIE v AINSLIE.

Archibald Ainslie sought a decree of the Court for restitution of conjugal rights, to be directed to his wife, Adriana Katie Ainslie (formerly Humphreys, nee Wilson), to whom he was married at Perth on August 25, 1914, according to the rites of the Presbyterian Church. The usual order, returnable in 21 days, was granted. Mr. D. Levy (instructed by Mr. Leon L. Cohen) appeared for the peti- tioner, and Mr. Studdert (instructed by Messrs. J. A. K. Shaw, Lewis, and Co.) for the re- pondent.

WILKINS v WILKINS.

A decree nisi, returnable six months after service, was granted in the suit in which Arthur Hordern Wilkins sought a divorce from Dorothy Gladys Wilkins (formerly Mullett), on the ground that the respondent, between Janu- ary 1, 1923, and January 3, 1925, committed adultery with a man or men who are unknown to the petitioner, at Newnes and Walgan. The parties were married at Wells, Somerset (England), on October 3, 1919. Mr. T. F.   Williams (instructed by Williams, Ryman, and Co.) appeared for the petitioner; and Mr. Smith (instructed by Mr. A. J. Dickson) for the respondent.

BURTENSHAW v BURTENSHAW.

Dorothy Louisa Burtenshaw (formerly Derley), who was married to Sydney Montague Burtenshaw at Sydney on February 16, 1921, according to the rites of the Church of Eng- land, petitioned for a dissolution of the mar-   riage on the ground that the respondent com- mitted adultery with Elizabeth Bucklow be- tween May 7 and June 15, 1923, on board the steamer Moreton Bay, and between June 15 and June 30, 1923, at Melbourne. The respon- dent (Sydney Montague Burtenshaw), in a cross-petition, asked for a divorce on the ground of desertion, by reason of his wife's   non-compliance with a decree of the Court for restitution of conjugal rights.    

His Honor dismissed the husband's petition, and granted the wife a decree nisi, return- able six months after service.

Mr. Rooney (instructed by Mr. J. Frisby

Arnott) appeared for the petitioner; and Mr. E. G. Maddocks Cohen for the respondent (Sydney Montague Burtenshaw).

McCAY v McCAY.

Violet Mary McCay (formerly Watson) peti- tioned for a divorce from Adam Cairns McCay on the ground that the respondent committed adultery with Maidean Francoise Elizabeth Stokes at Potts Point, Darlinghurst, and various other places in the State between January 1, 1925, and February 11, 1926. The marriage was celebrated at Sydney on June 1, 1916, according to the rites of the Pres- byterian Church. A decree nisi returnable six months after service was granted. Mr. Spender (instructed by Messrs. Ernest Cohen and Linton) appeared for the petitioner.

PARKER v PARKER.

A decree nisi returnable six months after service was granted in the suit in which Her- bert Hamilton Parker petitioned for divorce from Frances Ellen Parker (formerly Bart- lett) on the ground of desertion. The parties were married at Newtown on January 24, 1912, according to the rites of the Methodist Church. Mr. Reimer (instructed by Mr. R. F. Stuart- Robertson) appeared for the petitioner.

PAUL v PAUL.

Englebert Michael Paul, who was married to May Elizabeth Paul (formerly Lacey) at Canterbury on February 12, 1908, according to the rites of the Church of England, peti- tioned for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion. A decree nisi returnable six months after service was granted. Mr. Reimer (instructed by Mr. R. F. Stuart-Robert- son) appeared for the petitioner.

WILLIAMS v WILLIAMS.

Desertion was the ground on which William Williams sought a divorce from Maria Eliza- beth Williams (formerly Butler), to whom he was married at Sydney on September 23, 1899, according to the rites of the Independent Presbyterian Church. A decree nisi, return- able six months after service, was granted. Mr. Reimer (instructed by Mr. R. F. Stuart-

Robertson) appeared for the petitioner.  

LEER v LEER.

George William Ernest Leer petitioned for divorce from Ruby Beatrice Alexandra Leer (formerly Steadman) on the ground that the respondent, between November 15, 1924, and December 7, 1925, committed adultery with Alfred Rodley at Concord West, Leichhardt, Croydon, and other places. The parties were married at Rozelle on January 8, 1906, accord- ing to the rites of the Presbyterian Church.   A decree nisi, returnable six months after service, was granted. Mr. Reimer (instructed by Mr. R. F. Stuart-Robertson) appeared for the petitioner.

ROBERTS v ROBERTS.

A decree nisi, returnable six months after service, was granted in the suit in which Richard Roberts sought a divorce from Bea- trice Elizabeth Roberts (formerly Shuker), on the grounds that the respondent, between February 19, 1925 and February 28, 1925, com- mitted adultery with William McKnight at St. Peters and other places. The parties were married at Newtown on October 20, 1911, ac- cording to the rites of the Church of England. Mr. Reimer (instructed by Mr. R. F. Stuart- Robertson) appeared for the petitioner.

MOLA v MOLA.

Henry Arnold Mola, who was married to Marie Dunoon Mola (formerly Senior) at Townsville on April 6, 1894, according to the rites of the Presbyterian Church, petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground that, between December 7, 1918, and April 8, 1926, the respondent committed adul- tery with Arthur Benjamin Carr Glyn (now deceased), at Sydney and other places in Aus- tralia. A decree nisi, returnable in six months after service, was granted. Mr. Reimer (in- structed by Mr. E. R. Abigail) appeared for the petitioner.

JOHNSTON v JOHNSTON.

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights was sought by Sylvia Elizabeth Selina John- ston (formerly Hughes), to be directed to her husband, John Donald Johnston, to whom she was married at Drummoyne according to the rites of the Church of England. The usual decree, returnable in 21 days, was granted. Mr. Reimer (instructed by Mr. R. F. Stuart- Robertson) appeared for the petitioner.

Digitisation generously supported by
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Digitisation generously supported by

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down