5 corrections, most recently by anonymous - Show corrections
(Before Mr. Justice Owen, Judge in Divorce.)
HENDLEY V HENDLEY.
Joseph Hendley was the petitioner and Ethel May Hendley (formerly Smith) the respondent in a suit for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of the wife's adultery with Robert Crawford, who was joined as co-respondent and from whom the petitioner sought damages. The marriage took place at Redfern on March 26, 1902, according to the rites of the Church of England. Both respondent and co-re- spondent denied the allegations. The case stands part heard. Mr. Dovey (instructed by Messrs. C. P. White and Co.) appealed for the petitioner; Mr. Shortland (instructed by Messrs. Priddle, Gosling, and Sillar) for re- spondent; and Mr. Reimer (instructed by Messrs. Deane and Deane) for co-respondent.
(Before Mr. Justice Stephen.)
An application was made on behalf of John Patrick Garvan Sheridan, a Judge of the District Court, for an order discharging an order embodied in a decree absolute, granted against applicant on October 1, 1918, directing him to pay the petitioner, Beatrice Maude Sheridan (formerly Hordern) the sum of £52 a quarter. The parties were married at St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney, on January 9, 1901. In 1918, the petitioner obtained a divorce on the ground of failure to comply with an order for the restitution of conjugal rights. The decree was made absolute.
In an affidavit applicant set out that an order was embodied in the decree absolute, giving the petitioner the custody of the chil- dren. Respondent consented to an order for the payment of £ 52 a quarter for mainten- ance and education of the two children. No order was made for alimony. "I am informed and believe that the petitioner was in February last," the affidavit added, ''married to Baron Henry de Tuyll at Brompton, England, and am informed by my daughter, Beatrice, that the two children are living with petitioner and her husband in Wood Manor, Cobham, Surrey, England. I have read and believe that Baron Henry de Tuyll has considerable independent income from properties." In November, 1922, at the request of petitioner, respondent agreed to allow her the sum of £26 a month in place
of the provision in the decree absolute, which he had never seen, and always believed pro- vided for monthly and not quarterly payments. He continually paid larger sums than agreed upon. He had invested moneys for his chil- dren and had paid the dividends to the peti- tioners account, and had regularly sent them presents on their birthdays. In November, 1922, when petitioner asked for, and he agreed to increase the allowance, she informed him that her net income was £600 a year, in addition to which she received £250 a year from property in Darlinghurst. "The letters to me and to my family suggest that my younger daughter considers that the time has arrived when it is useless further to continue friendly relations with either myself or with members of my family." the affidavit added.
His Honor granted the application and dis- charged the order.
Mr. McGhie (instructed by Messrs. Minter, Simpson, and Co.) appeared for applicant.
FITZGERALD v FITZGERALD.
The suit in which Gladys Beatrice Fitz- gerald (formerly Lee) petitioned for a dis- solution of marriage with Wallace Emmett Fitzgerald on the grounds of assault and beat-
ings was concluded. His Honor granted a decree returnable in six months, respondent to pay the costs. Mr. R. M. Sturt (instructed by Mr. C. G. Prescott, of Young, through his Sydney agents, Messrs. Barnes, Hughesdon, and Davis) appeared for petitioner and Mr. J. R. Thomas for respondent.
STOCKBRIDGE v STOCKBRIDGE.
Jeanette Julia Stockbridge petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Robert Stock- bridge on the ground of adultery with Elsie Martin, who intervened. The marriage took place at Wellington (N.Z.) on August 12, 1908. The case is part heard Mr. Clifton Penny appeared for the petitioner and Mr. D. R. Hall
for the intervener.
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.
Mr. V. E. Fetherston, who was instructed by Messrs. R. D. Meagher, Sproule, and Co., applied for a writ of attachment to issue against Ernest Fogarty for non-payment of £ 200 damages awarded against him. Fogarty was the co-respondent in the case in which William Dalton Charles Quinn obtained a decree nisi for the dissolution of his marriage with Agnes Theresa Quinn, on the ground of adultery. His Honor directed a writ of at- tachment to issue, the writ to lie in the office so long as the co-respondent paid £2/10/ a week into court the first payment to be made on March 6, or seven days after service of notice of order, whichever might be the later date. Co-respondent, for whom there was no appearance, was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
The following decrees were made absolute:— Corinne Edna Jurd v Aubrey Leonard Jurd, Constance Bluebell Warren v Leopold Sheri- dan Warren, Norah Ryan v Edward Ryan, Doreen Raymond v Eric Raymond, Helma Louise Banning v Arthur Antoine Banning, Thomas Scollay v Nellie Margaret Scollay, Frances Emily Lawson v Lionel Wilfred John Lawson, Jean Cameron Henderson v Andrew Henderson, Henry Byron Thomas v Elizabeth Maude Thomas, Mary Halls v John Thomas Halls, Hilda May Stewart v Charles William Stewart, Mamie Hansen v Preben Peter Han- sen, Amy Dorothy Gitsham v Thomas Louis Gitsham, Mary Josephine Wise v John Wise.