Mary May Fletcher, is her married name and prior to being a Fletcher, her married name was Thompson.

1893. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
The adjourned quarterly meeting of the Eden Tent No. 2, 1.0.R.5.U., was held in the Newmarket Hall, on February 13bh. The election of officers for bhe ensuing six months resulted as follows:—C.R., Bro. A. Smith; D.R., Bro. J. Burns; Secretary, Bro. F. Knight (re-elected) ; Treasurer, Bro. F. Duckering; Stewards, Bros. Morris and Tiinms ; Levite, Bro. W. Mclnto&h ; Guard, Bro. T. Smith ; Auditors, Bros. Kenb and Mclntosh. The retiring elders were re-elected. The officers were duly installed by Bro. G. Kent, P.C.R., after which the C.R. Bro. Smith on behalf of the Tent, presented Bto. Knight with a handsome silver-mounted cruet and pair of carvers, as a alight token of their esteem for him on the occasion of his recent marriage. Auckland Star, Volume XXIv, Issue 45, 23 February 1893, Page 8
Frederick William in his father's will was nominated to receive a £300 legacy - 1894. See Charles's will on his file.

1896 ROAD BOARD MEETINGS. DRURY.An exciting election for two members for the Karaka Road Board took place at Mr James Gordon's residence lasb Saturday, when, notwithstanding the inclemoncy of the weather, almost every person on the roll turned oub to record their votes, the result being a very large majority for the two new candidates. The candidates, with results, are as follows :—Mr Archibald Jamison, 31 ; F. VV. Duckering, 28 ; R. Worthington, 12 : A. T. Urquharc, 7. , . PUKEKOHE. Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 105, 6 May 1896, Page 2

1899. A FARMER'S DIVORCE
WIDOWER AND WIDOW,
A BRIEF HONEYMOON.
SUPREME COURT SUIT.
A divorce case which had some rather peculiar features was heard at the Supreme Court civil sessions today, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a jury of four. This was a suit Thomas Fletcher (petitioner) v. Mary May Fletcher (respondent) and Thomas Godkin and Fred. Duckering (co-respondents). Petition for decree nisi for dissolution of marriage.
Mr C. J. Parr appeared for the petitioner, and Mr F. E. Baume for the co-respondent Thomas Godkin. The respondent was present, but was not represented by counsel. No answer to the citation was filed by Duckering, but Godkin had filed a denial of the allegations.
Mr Parr said the petitioner alleged that his wife had committed adultery in 1896 with Fred Duckering, then a farmer at Drury, and now in the employ of the Direct Supply Co., and subsequently with Thomas Godkin, hotelkeeper, of Drury. Both the petitioner and co-respondent had been previously married, the former twice.
Thomas Fletcher, the petitioner, a middle-aged man, deposed that he was a farmer residing at Hoteo North, in the Port Albert district. He had been a farmer there for-nearly thirty years. He had had two wives before the present one. His first wife died about 1801. The second wife was also dead, and the respondent was his third wife. He married the present respondent in May, 1893, at Spring-street, Ponsonby, in the respondent's house. The Rev. W. S Potter performed the ceremony. He lived with his wife there for a few days (from Thursday to the following Wednesday), and then returned to his home at Hoteo, leaving his wife in Auckland. The arrangement was that his wife was to come up and join him in a month or six weeks, selling her furniture in town. His wife was a widow (Mrs Thompson) when he married her. She had one child—a girl by her first marriage. His wife did not go up to join him as arranged. He wrote to her, and in November (about six months after the marriage} he came to Auckland. He had heard nothing of her during those six months. He went to the house where his wife lived, and found she was not there. There was a woman in charge (Mrs Evans), but she would not tell petitioner where his wife was. He returned to his farm, and early in December received a letter (produced) from his wife, in which she wrote: —
"Spring-street, Ponsonby. Mr Fletcher: Sir, I heard from my housekeeper that you was in town inquiring for me. Well, you have a cheek, as you know, or ought to know, I don't want to see you again. I am going to run away with the one I love. I won't mention names. I have committed adultery already, and am going to have an increase, so don't trouble yourself about me more. Mary May Thompson, or rather Fletcher.”
 The petitioner went on to say that in the following year (1897) he found that his wife had had a child, and he ascertained that it was registered, by its mother as illegitimate in the name, of  Fred. Duckering Fletcher. The date of birth was March 1, 1897. Its death was also registered the same time, with the Registrar of Births and Deaths in the Drury district. Sometime after this he received a letter from his wife, dated Hargreave street, October 26, 1897, in which she said she was again enciente, but said if Fletcher would take her back again no one would know but what the child was his. She asked petitioner to forgive her, and take her back, but at the same time accused him of being the cause of the trouble. She threatened to come and turn his housekeeper out. Petitioner never had a woman in the house except his sister. Subsequently Mrs Fletcher wrote and said her remarks about being enciente in the previous letter were not true; they were only made to vex the petitioner. She expressed contrition, and asked her husband to take her back. She concluded by asking him to dream of her, for after all there was "no one like a wife," and saying: "Hug the pillow and think you are hugging me."
Petitioner went on to say that since: 1893 he had not lived with his wife, and from the time he left her on the week after the marriage he had not seen her until this morning.
F. H. Williamson, solicitor, deposed to serving the citations on Godkin and Mrs Fletcher at Ramarama. They were living in the same house. Mrs Fletcher admitted having committed adultry with Duckering. Godkin said Mrs Fletcher was only his housekeeper.
Samuel Walker, Registrar of Birth and Deaths for the Drury district, gave evidence as to the registration of the birth of an illegitimate child by Mrs Fletcher.
Bridget Paul, of Mt. Roskill, said that when Mrs Fletcher came to stay with her some your years she was about to have a child, and said Duckering was the father. She said she had never cared for her husband. Duckering came to witness's house to visit Mrs Fletcher.
Constable Foreman, of Papakura gave evidence as to Mrs Fletcher Iiving in the hotel at Drury, which was kept by Godkin. Witness last December laid a complaint before the Licensing Bench concerning the woman. The license of the hotel was subsequently transferred. Godkin then bought a farm near Ramarama, and he and Mrs Fletcher went up to live there.
Cross-examined by Mr Baume: Mrs Fletcher while at Drury Hotel was often very abusive, especially when under the influence of liquor. She once accused witness of trying to take liberties with her, but afterwards apologised for the statement, which was untrue. She was on one occassion convicted of using insulting language. On more than one occasion she left the hotel to take employment else where, and other housekeepers employed while she was away. Thomas Beaney gave evidence as to the relations between Godkin and Mrs Fletcher at Drury. He spoke of familiarity between the two. Cross-examined by Mr Baume, witness said Godkin and the respondent occupied different bedrooms in the hotel. Mrs Fletcher was the only woman in the hotel.
William McGee, farm labourer, deposed that he had been working recently on Godkin's farm at Ramarama Mrs Pletcher and her daughter, who were living there, were supposed to use one of the bedrooms (of which there were two), and Godkin the other (Left sitting.). Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 293, 11, December 1899, Page 4.

1899. DIVORCE CASES.
|BY TELEGRAPH— PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, 12th December. In the divorce case Fletcher v. Fletcher, the jury to-day found that the respondent had misconducted herself with both Godkin and Duckering. Mr. Justice Conotly granted a decree nisi for a dissolution of the marriage with costs on the highest scale against Godkin. In the, case Alice Ross (petitioner) v. James Murdoch Ross (respondent), a petition on the ground of desertion, there was no appearance of the respondent. His Honour granted a decree nisi, I and gave petitioner the custody of the children. An application was made by William Pugh for a dissolution of his marriage with Haunah Pugh. The couple were married as far back as 1860. Mr. Justice Conolly remarked that it was peculiar that an application should be made for divorce after nearly forty years of married life. The petition was granted. Evening Post, Volume LV111, Issue 142, 13 December 1899, Page 5