DIVORCE CASES.
JURYMEN DISAGREE. PRESS ASSOCIATION Dunedin, last night. In the Divorce Court yesterday the case of Muirhead v. Muirboad and Gaw, hue. band’s petition, was conoluded, Petitioner alleged that respondent had tnieconduoied herself with c .-respondent at Peliehet Bay fetation, of whioh 00-respondeot was etavionmastor, petitioner discovering them by looking through tho windows of the sta> lion. The jury after a long retirement re-
turned, when tho foreman reported that on the first iseuo, “ was respondent guilty' of adultery with 00-respondent nine said no and three yes. On the issue, “did co-respondent oommit adultery with respondent ?” nine said yes and eleven said no. The petition was dismissed, the Chief Jußtioe rernai king >ha> it w-b bd extra* ordinary verdict eo fat as the firnt issue -a o ac-dmi), It was stated that a in t! n won d he mad.' for a new t->al. Dt i is n > - i ii i t ,1 t t.e 0 „ 8 „ B »i O*t v G ~»l vm ti , and Oark. v. io k, -it ’» p it.on, bath on ’ (he grounds uf oosertiou,
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19061110.2.24
Bibliographic details
Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1929, 10 November 1906, Page 2
Word Count
180DIVORCE CASES. Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1929, 10 November 1906, Page 2
Using This Item
The Gisborne Herald Company is the copyright owner for the Gisborne Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Gisborne Herald Company. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in