LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 62, 6 December 1907, Page 4

LAW REPORTS

*.«.■■*. If DIVORCE. ■"'■ ■% His Honoun Mα;.. Justico Button held a Bitting in Divorce yesterday morning. "'*'■' 4 - , .dllended suit! ■'' "'■ : " ■■' ']■ s - r r; HEABjjjG /ADJOURNED,-:-.:; .,,, Eobert EstheY tram conductor, so,ught s a : dissolution of his, marriage with Afico Mary Aridorsbn on tlio ground of hor. adultery with Alexander Birnio, grocer, The case..siopd. partly'heard.! .' ' ".' . ■ ■ Mr. Hordman appoared on behalf of petitionor, but resjijondont ,was not represented. by counsel. ■ '''"' J '" " His Honour intimated that, sinco the case was beforo the Court previously, the respondent had made certain allegations, and petitioner would'-tther.eforo bo required to givo , further evidence. ~■'''] Potitioner, sworn, stated that he was aware respondent a summons, for .lqayo to, defdnd'tho proceedings. It was untrue"that'' ho had burnt tho papers served on respondent. Tho fact* was'thai .ho and'his wife had lodged separately in the same house, and that, when v his wife went away, the papers''were found in her room; biit he did not know what had become of them. It was ■also.,untrue that ho had informed his wife ' thiSb£he_ did not-intend to go on ; with the" proceedings. Petitioner and his wifo had not lived as man and wifo sinco the commencement of the proceedings. He admitted havitfgjcut-offi.some of his wife's hair,' but contended'thait'he tiad done so on the score of cleanliness;;^,■•;■ ..•; Respondent deposed that, from June 18 to August•" I—i.o : .*-, since the commencement of the 'proceedings—petitioner and herself had lived as man and wife. Cross-examined, respondent denied that ehe had, since'the proceedings were instituted, misconducted herself at Palmerston North. •■•• . .. 'Jl Emily,- Arps gave evidence that fpr: some time*sbe .resided in tho same house^ as:-.the parties I .''' ' Excepting for a few'days* ■subsequent to the service of the papers';i,oii';"respondent, the parties occupied the sani&,.bfe(3room. x r £ . ..'. :. - '■!-s■:' "M , . iGjossjexaminea',. witness stated tb.a"Jjv:'respondent had not told her * that, 'since the commencement of the proceedings, she had misconducted, herself. :.. • • The further hearing of the case'was ad : journed provisionally until this,morning. .MARRIAGE DISSOLVED: ■;.;;;; William < Brown prayed -for 'the dissolution of his marriage with Sarah' Jane Brb'wn,*on the ground, of respondent's adultery/'with one Ja'ijies Macfarlane. - "'■'■■ ■:''' : ', •;;•!'■ Mr. Herdriian appeared for the 'petitioner, but respondent and co-respondent >vefe .not •present, nor were they represented .by counsel. . ' ' . ' •' Petitioner,. vinv;evidence,.stated that ho married respondent in 1883, and that there ; we're.'five children'of the marriage. Up_ till 1897J when his wife left him, they resided at Auckland. His irife had not returned .to. him. Michael Gclder, cook, of Auckland, deposed that in August last co-respondent admitted tvhim M and a ,ipan named Gilman .that respondent ,had comttiitted adultery with tiim'.": Hamer Gilman gave corroborative eyidenco. His Honour granted tho decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. The question" of,; costs was reserved, His Honour intimating-that ho was under the impression that costs were not allowed against a co-respondent in a case where the respondent was leading an immoral life. -•(On the application of Mr. L'oVi, the decree nisi in the case, Mary Maljel Campbell versus' Samuel Campbell was made absolute, arid the custody of the children was granted to petitioner:. . ; -..- ;•' >."'. "■■■■■■■■'•",. ."..■,' '-IV" 7-