AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.
♦ (By TcUnrrath.-Prcss Association.! Auckland, February 11. The divorce case, William Francis In<ler, solicitor, practising at. Clow, v. Leah Lillian Indor, liis wife, and Arthur Stoddart, the lattor being named as corespondent, but not having filed a defence, was continued at the Supreme Court before his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and :i jury of twelve yesterday. The respondent, Mrs. Inder, went into the box and detailed the circumstances of her married life, leading up to the final separation of the parties. lit referring to the evidencs relative to her use of morphia, the witness declared that several doctors had repeatedly ordered morphia, ami it had been aljsolutolv necessary for her to hnvo recourse to"thu use of this drug. On several occasions petitioner had brought morphia to lur. The jury returned into the court with a verdict, that respondent did not commit adultery with the co-respondent. His Honour therefore dismissed the petition with costs upon the highest scale. \ certificate was also granted for 15 guineas allowance for the second trial,
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19120212.2.27
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1361, 12 February 1912, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
171AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1361, 12 February 1912, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in