Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS UNDER DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT. Wednesday, January 16. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] HENRY V. HENRY. This was a petition by David Henry, of Beach road, Kaiapoi, for a divorce on the ground of the adultery of his wife, Lizzie Henry, with one William Moore, of Kaiapoi, farm laborer. He also sought to recover £SOO damages, for which, however, he did not press. Mr Joynt appeared for the petitioner.

There was no appearance of either respondent or co-respondent. It had been, on a former occasion, arranged that his Honor should hear the facts without a jury. After opening the case for the petitioner, Mr Joynt called the Rev. C. Fraser, who deposed to marrying David Henry and Lizzie Burridge, at Christchurch, on 13th September, 1871.

Thomas Stevenson deposed to being pre sent at the marriage.

David Henry said lie was the petitioner in the case, was married at the date named, and lived with his wffo till March 18th, 1877, when she left him. Idio co-respondent in the case, William Moore, was his nephew, and had lived in his house as a servant. Witness then detailed at length the conduct of his wife and nephew on various occasions, and proved that they had been guilty of adultery, ilis wife acknowledged to him that she w-as guilty, and begged forgiveness. In the course of his examination witness admitted that he lived with his wife for a fortnight after he was convinced of her guilt, but his object in doing so was to obtain incontrovertable proof before taking action for a divorce. Ilis Honor remarked that such conduct was condonation.

Mr Joynt said (hat the petitioner had a motive—the procuring of incontrovertible proof—and expressed a doubt whether, under the circumstances, the petitioner’s conduct could be considered as condoning the offence.

His Honor said the matter would have to be decided in the Court above. ,

Other corroborative evidence having been called,

His Honor stated that he would report to the full Court, probaby in May, The Court then rose.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GLOBE18780116.2.7

Bibliographic details

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1207, 16 January 1878, Page 2

Word Count
341

SUPREME COURT. Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1207, 16 January 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1207, 16 January 1878, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert