SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 56, 30 November 1918, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

DIVORCE SUt'l , . - Mr. Justice I locking yesterdiiy heard a petition by Cathi-rine Cain, 0f...1.1ix0n street, Welliiißion, for dissolution of her tnsirriiiao with l.coniird Ciitbbert (.'ain. TIU! grounds (if Hie application were desertion ami iitliilli'ry. Mr. 0. Alazcngiirb .ippenrcd for peti-. liuner, rcspondriit In'iiiß iindcfciideil. ■ Petitioner deposed Hint Uu- marriage tdiik j)llli!i> In Wtwinlji-r, ll)0:t. . Tlien-e \vpre two uliiliivpil (if I hi , marriage, ' .In'101.1 respondent admitted n<lililer,y (<j her. \fter thnl lime sbo had noLliypd/.lVitli liui. She hail, noi had any money from lim, but bud, on t lio other band, helped lim on occasions,, at one lime.sending him -C2OO to Sydney, where he was residing. She bad also paid off a debi of .£IOO lie hud ronlracled. 'About three yi'ii.rs ago respondent, assaulted her because she would not resume cohabitation; j .Ifi.s Honour -declared Hint the evidence 'with regard lo Hie desertion' Was not sufficient. Ke.-ipoildenr. had lived with petitioner up till two and n-half years ' Mr. Jfnwngarb Ribniittetl that.the alleged failure lo inaiiiliain was sufficient evidence of desertion. . His Honoiia , said he could not accept Hie argument, as the petitioner had had liw own l)iisine.ss before marriage, and iwus.now .twrying it on with profit; He could not- go against his 'better judgment and would not accept the evidence as sufficient. ,'. His Honour said the case was a most flimsy one altogether. . Some definite corroboration of. adultery was necessary. Som« evidence of a- general nature • had been given, but lie could not acton it, and would grant an adjournment for thepurpose of obtaining corroboration of adultery, and much stricter evidence of desertion, was rer[iiircu. An adjournment was granted accord-, ing'ly.