A Melbourne Divorce Suit

Feilding Star, Volume VIII, Issue 45, 25 September 1886, Page 4

A Melbourne Divorce Suit

A petition for divorce, in which Dr Rose, M.L.A., figures as a co-respon-dent, was accepted by the chief Justice yesterday, says the Age of the Ist inst. The petitioner, Joseph Hinds Weeding, formerly a baker in Spencerstreet, West Melbourne, seeks a dissolution of his marriage with Emily Weeding, nee Raine, on the ground of hor misconduct with James Marmadnke Rose, "of Latrobe-street west, medical practitioner, and claims £1000 damages from the co-respondent. The parties were married in Hotham by tho Rev. Wm. Poole, Baptist minister of South Melbourne, on the 3rd Decemher, 1878, the petitioner, who was horn hi Cambridgeshire, England, being then a widower with one child, and 32 years of age, and the respondent, a native of Cork, Ireland, and 23 years old. There was one child by the present marriage, a boy 7 years of age. The petition sets out that Weeding was introduced to the corespondent by his wife, both heing members of the Methodist Church, of which Dr Rose was a lay preacher. InSeptemberof last year the petitioner was induced hy the Jco-respondent to allow his wife, to go to his farm at Mitcham, 15 miles from Melbourne, as Mrs Rose's companion, and he sold off his husiness, and removed to Mitcham with his wife and children. Upon his arrival he found their house unfinished, and returned to Melbourne with the children. His wife refused to accompany him. In the following February his house was finished, anc he again went to Mitcham. He bega. to suspect, from their familiarity, thai improper relations existed hetweei his wife and Dr Rose, and remon strated with him, hut without effect In August, 1885, the petitioner anc co-respondent, with their wives, tool a trip to Healsville. where Weeding had a further evidence of his wif e'l misconduct. He since forbade her hi house, and had frequently seen her ii Dr . Rose'B company. He wrete j letter to Dr Rose, stating that if b< again associated with the responden .h« would be compelled to make i public exposure of his conduct, hut hi had evidence that their intimacy ka< continued notwithstanding. Thi petitioner then determined to go ti Brisbane, first writing to his wife an( urging here to go with him to rescu< her from her illicit love. She howeve: declined to accompany him and. afte. an absence of six weeks he returnee to Melbourne and instituted the pre sent proceedings. It is stated tha both respondent and co-responden positively deny the allegations mad< by the petitioner.