SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1989, 20 September 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

This Day,

MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION,

(Before Mr Justice Ward.) JESSED V. JESSEP AND NICHOLSON.

This was an application for a divorce. Mr Harris appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Wilson for the co-respondent, Charles Nicholson. The respondent did not appear. Mr Wilson intimated that he desired to withdraw the plea of “not guilty” of adultery, on the part of his client, which, through a clerical error, had been allowed to remain on the record. The case therefore came before the Court in the light of an undefended case. The Judge intimated that the issues wmuld have to be tried in the same way as if the case had been defended.

Mr Harris explained that these proceedings (had been instituted by the petitioner, Charles Jessep, for the purpose of obtaining a decree dissolving his maniage with the respondent, Emily Jessep. About September, 1802, the petitioner was legally married to Emily Cropp, at the Lutheran Church, East Melbourne, Victoria ; that he lived and cohabited with her first at Melbourne, afterwards at Gipps Land, and latterly at Miller’s Flat, in this Province; that on the 9th July, 1804, and on other occasions, the co-respon-dent had adulterous intercourse with respondent ; that subsequently be cohabited with her, and still cohabits with her. The petitioner therefore prayed that the marriage might be dissolved, and that the co-respon-dent might be ordered to pay the costs of the suit. The citation had been answered by the co-respondent, who had put in a plea of not guilty, but had subsequently withdrawn it. 'Hie issues for the Court to decide were—Were the petitioner and the respondent married at Ea-t Melbourne on the 18th September, 18(52? Had the respondent committed adultery with the corespondent ? and had the petitioner condoned the adultery, if any had been committed ? The petitioners affidavit verifying his position was sworn on the 4th inst., and riled on the 7th inst. It stated that he married Emily Cropp, spinster, at the Lutheran Church, East Melbourne, on the date above mentioned. They lived and cohabited at the Temperance Hotel, Lonsdale street, Melbourne, for a couple of weeks ; and afterwards went to reside at Donnelly’s Creek, Gipps Land, where they lived together up to the 18th February, 18(53. The petitioner then came over to this Colony, leaving his wife with her sister at G;pps Land. In November, 18(53, he sent over to Victoria for his wife, and in January, 18(54, she joined him at Miller’s Flat, where they lived together until July in that year. During part of that time they lived in a cottage next

to the house of the co-respondent, whose place she was in the habit of visiting daily. On or about the 19th of July, 18(14, the petitioner found the co-respondent with his wife in her bedroom, and he then believed that Nicholson I) ad adulterous intercourse with her. He believed that lie had adulterous intercourse on the following day, when he (petitioner) left her. She had been cohabiting ev- r since with the co-respondent, and had borne three children, of which the co-respon-dent was believed to be the father. Mr Harris produced the affidavit of William Maw, hotel-keeper, Melbourne, which was to the effect that he was present at the solemnization of the marriage of Charles Jessep with Emily Cropp, on Sept. 18, 1802 ; that he had made a true extract of the marriage certificate, filed in the office

of the Register General of births, marriages, and deaths, for the Colony of Victoria. Mr E. F. Ward, solicitor, proved that under the statute 16, Victoria, certificates of marriages were deposited with the Registrar General, who was the officer appointed by law to have the custody of the same. Jas. Thomson, manager of Mr W. Miller’s station, Miller’s Flat, stated that he had resided there during the last twelve years, and was acquainted with nearly every person who had resided there for the last five years. He knew the petitioner, who worked on the

station during the early part of 1864 for nearly four months. Shortly after he went there he was joined by his wife, and while they resided on the station they appeared to live" happily and comfortably together. He visited them, and never heard her complain of ill-treatment from her husband. Shortly after he left the station he left the district, and did not return. His wife stayed, and has lived with the co-respondent ever since. She was now known as Mrs Nicholson. There were three children in Nicholson’s house—the eldest about five years of age and the youngest about twelve months. The respondent had told him (witness) that Nicholson was their father and that she was their mother. No other female but the respondent lived in the house.

Duncan M'Crae and Charles Golding gave similar evidence. The last-mentioned witness stated that he lived at Nicholson’s for some time, and occupied the next bedroom to that in which the respondent and Nicholson generally slept. The Judge having expressed his opinion that the identification of the parties was not complete, Mr Harris intimated his intention of calling the petitioner to clear up that point. His Honor agreed to take the evidence, remarking that it remained to be seen hereafter what the evidence was worth.

The petitioner stated that he was married to limily C'ropp, a native of Hanover, on the 18th September, 1862, Mr Maw, and a young woman, whose name he could not remember, being present. He subsequently lived with her at Miller’s Flat, during the year 1864.

His Honor said that he would have to consider whether he had to grant a decree nisi. He bad some slight doubt upon the point. Adultery had been fully proved, and the evidence as to the marriage was quite sufficient. Mr Harris explained that there had been no delay in bringing the case on for trial. He desired to know if the Court wmikl order that the evidence of the witnesses should be taken by affidavit, in order that there might be something placed before the Appeal Court, of which the Judges could take cognisance. It was impossible that the witnesses could leave the Province. The Judge said Mr Harris might mention the matter in chambers, when he would doubtless decide upon the question of jurisdiction,

IX PANKPUPTGY. On the application of Mr Howorfch, the

appointment of Mr Sly as trustee in the estate of Alex. Fisher, was confirmed. The Court then adjourned.