AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3417, 3 February 1874, Page 3

AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE COURT.

Carpenter v. Carpenter (wife) and Barber, which appears to have attracted considerable notice in Auckland, occupied the attention of Chief Justice Arney and a jury for three •days. The petitioner is an M.P.C., and the co-respondent is a merchant of Auckland. The petitioner, in hia evidence, said he married at Great Yarmouth in 1863, bis wife then being within three months of seventean years of age. Three years afterwards they came to Auckland, and lodged at a board-ing-house for bachelors, kept by a widow named Burdett. Petitioner occupied rooms on one side of a passage and Barber rooms on the other. He went from Auckland for a time, and on his return went into and furnished a bouse in Bath street, which was rented by Barber. Petitioner further said, in evidence :—“I might have stayed one night in Bath street before leaving for Grahamstown, but not more. 1 did not put Barber and my wife in the house, but she went there with my consent. It did not strike me that it was a very convenient arrangement to enable those two parties to make love if they thought fit, I was never warned as to the imprudence of leaving my wife with Barber. M After being examined as to monetary transactions with Barber, who on one occasion advanced him LlO, the following letters written by him to his wife from Wangerei and Grahamstown, were read

I see that you still harp on the old subjects—the streets and housekeeping—and that you wish more than ever to leave me. There is one way of doing it You asked me more than once to make such an arrangement as would make an assignment of money (Oh, death on the money!)—about L 2,00 consideration of which—you know the rest. Now, by the eternal God, if all parties are agreeable I will carry this arrangement out, and you will be able to carry out your object, and never see any us again. You have had no communication with him ; I did not expect that you would, as I thought you had sense of honor enough not to do so. If he cares so much for you as you say he does, I will readily consent; therefore, you can write to him on this subject only. I only stipulate that you keep for mo a copy of your letters, and his replies to them. You can tell him this, and he will be prudent in what he writes. I think there is nothing I might say would be more agreeable to you. If he comes he can sh- a the deed of assignment, and I will have a witness ready in waiting. In half an hour all can be done, and no scandal will arise —and may I be eternally damned if I do not do so.—l am, &c..

W, C. • .* • You know that I say what I mean. I think contempt of myself as I write, but it shallJbe done. I shall not be surprised if the love is all on one side.

Grabamstown, 23rd December, 1871. Dear Wife, —I regret that circumstances have arisen calculated to lead to unpleasant results. They are so far beyond my control that I must be content to await the issue, as I cannot apparently interfere, with any prospect of success. Whatever course you pursue, I trust that it may be such as you will in after life be able to remember it with comparative pleasure. I know it is possible for some minds to become so very much warped that they can love deformity. I can only hope that this will not be the case with you, and that whatever you do will not leave stings in after life ; and that the experience you have gained may be profitable to you. In September, 1872, he addressed the respondent as “my much esteemed and beloved wife,” in which he described himself as a “thrice happy man,” the proudest moment of whose life would be to see his children tread the path their mother “tread so nobly and so well,” but he regretted that the children “are prevented from enjoying the privilege of living within the influence of her actions, and from benefiting by her teaching.” That he would see them trained “ under the watchful eye of a mother such as Rome never saw and these degenerate days rarely sec “ was the daily wish of his heart. The letter concluded thus :—“I kiss the hem of your radiant garment, and am with the profoundest admiration and love your te be envied husband. The object of this last letter was (so said petitioner in evidence) satire. Further on he said “ I did not look out for a rich wife, though I might have had one if I had desired. I did not marry my wife for money, nor for beauty. She was attractive ip appearance, and had great intellectual power?. | considered it prudent to leave

her as 1 did—at all events. I should have thought it safe to leave her in a house where you were. (Roars of laughter ) Mr Bennett, the c nmsei referred to : You pay me a very great compliment in view of such a short acquaintance.—(Renewed laughter.) She swore she would go on the streets as a common prostitute if I would not let her earn her own living as a housekeeper The satirical letter was written because of the receipt of a letter from her containing a recommendation that I should live with a mistress. r l he adultery of the respondent and co-respondent was fully proved. There was no actual defence on their parts, beyond the pleas that petitioner had condoned the offence and that his leaving “a young fascinating wife shut up in a distinct part of a house with a young lodger conduced to adultery.” It was also contended that the Waugerei letter was nothing more nor less' than an offer by petitioner to sell his wife for L 2,000 to the Rev. C. Ogg, an imaginary person, and if so, it would be of little consequence to petitioner to whom she was sold. The jury found for the petitioner on all the issues, and Judge Arney agreed to recommend the Full Court to saddle the co-respondent with the whole costs of the cause.