DIVORCE COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2251, 16 May 1881, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

(PKKSH ASSOCIATION TELEGRAMS.) WELLINGTON, May 16. The Divorce Court opened this morningDecrees absolute were granted in the oases of Gilfillan v Gilfillan (Dunedin), and MoGhee v McGhoe (Dunedin). A rule nisi was granted in Bailey v Bailey (Dunedin). WESTON v WESTON. Evidence has been given in the case of Weston v Weston (Christchurch). Wm. Weston applied for a dissolution of his marriage on tho grounds of adultery on the part of the respondent, who had, since her marriage with petitioner, kept a brothel. Petitioner deposed that he was a bookmaker. He married respondent, then Jane Kirley, in Dunedin, in March, 1878, and resided there for a short time. He subsequently lived with his wife in Christchurch, Sydney, and Melbourne, and returned to Ohristohurob. Here, on his return after a short absence, she was missing from home, and he found her drinking champagne in a hotel. She had (he believed) been a prostitute before ho married her, but she had reformed and became a frequent attendant at church. George Henry Miller, commercial traveller, residing in Christchurch, deposed—Petitioner treated his wife, who was a woman of great personal attraction, with great consideration. When she left her husband's house she went to stay at the residence of witness's father-in-law, and she aftorwards went to live at a house of | ill fame.— Sergt. Hughes (of Christchurch) deposed that he had known respondent for twelve months, and petitioner two years. Respondent had been a prostituto ever since witness knew her. Petitioner (recalled) said that before he was married he obtained no certificate from the registrar of the right of' the minister to marry him. Ho made no declaration before the Registrar as to the parties being of full ages.—After discussing the point as to whether the fact of the certificate not being obtained, previously to the marriage, would or would not affect the case, their Honors postponed their decision until to-morrow. CAMPBELL v CAMPBELL. In the case of Campbell v Campbell (Christchurch), Mr Bell, who appeared for petitioner, said that neither the respondent nor the co-respondent appeared, and that the question of damages had beon abandoned to save trial by jury. Mr Bell, in opening the case, stated that the petitioner, Jas. Campbell, was married to the respondent in Victoria, and removed to Ohristohnrch in 1874. In 1879 Mrs Campbell, during her confinement at Ashburton, was attended by Dr. Boss, who, up to 1880, frequently came to respondent's house. At the end of 1880 the respondent had a tooth drawn by Dr. Ross, who said it was necessary for an operation to be performed. For this purpose the doctor said it was necessary for Mrs Campbell to go to Ashburton. The parties were at this time living at Christchurch. Arrangements had been made for Mrs Campbell to atay with a Miss Royle in Christchurch, but the petitioner found that Dr. Roes had taken it on himself to engage rooms for Mrs Campbell. A quarrel ensued, and the petitioner forbade Dr. Ross's visiting his house. Petitioner had a suspicion of his wife's fidelity at that time. In February, 1881, the petitioner discovered conclusive evidenoe of her adultery with Ross. Upon charging her with it, sbe admitted it. Letters, whioh Mr Bell said were of a most disgusting character, would show that the respondent and corespondent had engaged rooms where they used to meet daily, and counsel urged that there would be no difficulty in proving the adultery. The letters contained indecent language, mixed with high-flown sentiments, and prayers to Almighty God for blessings on the respondent. Celina Gosling, residing at Ohristohurch, said that in February, 1881, a woman calling herself Mrs Graham came to her and BBked to rent two rooms—a sitting and a bedroom. The rooms were let to her, and she came frequently, and always at about nine or ton o'clock in a morning, and a man, whom witness understood to be Mrs Graham's husband, used to come shortly after her. They were in the bedroom together. They never stayed a night in the room. Witness here identified the photos of Mrs Campbell and Dr Ross as those of the parties'who frequented ber rooms. [The case is proceeding.]