DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 437, 9 June 1902, Page 3

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

By Tolcgraph—Press Association. Invercargill, last night. In the divorce case Marjory Sutherland v. Robert Sutherland (wife’s petition), on tho ground of adultery, Mr Justice Denniston refused to grant a decree. Tho parties were married a week before last Christinas, the petitioner before she was fifteen I years of age, to hide supposed shame. Tho respondent, who is a coach-driver to Waikaia, hud not provided a homo nor maintenance. It turned out that the petitioner was not enceinte. His Honorsaid that as tho law stood tho court could I be used as convenience in cases liko this. The man who had been employed to watch respondent gave evidence that immediately ho roached Waikaia he saw ' Sutherland commit adultery. His Honor: “Do you think I am going to grant a divorce on the evidence that the girl had married solely to avoid supposed disgraco and that the,man, to savo the cost of keeping tho child, now wanted to use the machinery of tho Court to get a divorce ? If adultery was committed at all it was probably to make evidence for this case. The machinery of tho Court is used onough for this purpose, but this is going too far. Tho case is dismissed.”

On the question of costs in the Kempton divorce case, His Honor refused Borne, co-respondent, his costs as against petitioner. Although counsel withdrew him from tho case, His Honor said Borne had taken the principal part in what appeared conspiracy to coerco a young man into the extraordinary marriage, and his conduct was extremely discreditable and barely failed of being sufficient ovidenco of adultery to go to tho jury. As regarded the woman, His Honor said it was clear that she and co-respondent were combining not to prevent divorce, but to protect co respondent. Tho second day’s proceedings wero in the interest of the co respondent, and only one day’s costs would bo allowed co-respondent, who got £25 and disbursements.