Wanganui Divorce Case

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 134, 22 April 1886, Page 3

Wanganui Divorce Case

BOBBRTS T. HOBEBTB AND WILKB.

' WufGANtJi, April 20. Mr Baker appeared for the petitioner and Mr Hutchison for the corespondent. Mr Baker opened his case by reading the petition, and stated that the petitioner wished to obtain the divorce on account of his wife committing adultery with J. Wilts. The respondent did not appear, but ■ fte co-respondent did, in answer to a «laim against him for damages.

Mr Baker called the petitioner, J. H. Roberts, who deposed that he was a labourer residing at Palmerston ; was married in 1873 to Catherine L. "Williscroft at Woodside ; had in his possession a marriage certificate ; had three children bj the marriage ; remembered March, 1883; was living at Makino then ; came to Wanganni that month ;*%aw his wife in Wanganui; she left him in March, 1883, and had never returned to her home since ; she took the youngest child away with her ; knew the co-respondent ; found his wife in a house at Wanganui; asked her what she intended to do; she said she did net care for him or the children ; asked her to return ; she said, " I never will' 1 ; she said she could not live with him on account of his always grumbling at her ; went tad took a solicitor's advice ; in consequence of something he heard, went to Bakertown, near Woodville, and saw his wife there ; went with a Mr W. Francis, of Woodyille, to a house occupied by the co-respondent, Wilks, and saw his wife there ; Mr Frauds knocked at the door ; petitioner's wife came to the door; Mr Francis said " Mrs Wilks, someone wants to see you" ; petitioner then said, " Good evening, Mrs Wilke"; she said nothing; up to the oth of Mar<h, 1882, petitioner had lived agreeably with her; Wilts was working for him at the time, and living in his house ; Wilks was the firat cause of their vnhappiness. Petitioner was further exa > lined by His Honor, and cross-examined ly Mr Hutchinson, who then put the corespondent in the bos w '■• , with F. Wuleacroft, a brother of the respondent, deposed to petitioner and wife living a "cat ana dog life," always falling out " first about one thing, and then about another." Just prior to respondent leaving her husband, they had a row, in which he swore at her, and threatened to dash her brains out against the wall. The co-respondent left petitioner's employ a few days ai^Mjrs Roberts left her home, but nadid not induce her to leave, neither badimptoper relations existed between them up W that time. It wall some coasJdtMJbla time subsequently before he oommcaJed cohabitation with her. Though lj I|beiirer, he had maintained the woman and two of her children by her husband, and she had, with his knowledge, sent awaj clothes to another child. >

< Ooanaet tni. <Hu Honor having ad-dnfwd-the |sgy» tMy retired about l'.jM ?.m. TOming in an hour and tw^. minutes with a verdict for petitioner, with damages against the eo-rMnondept aweesea at one shilling. ' la answer to the foreman of the jury, His Honor said the co-respon-dent magi bear the costs.

A decree tun was granted.