DIVORCE COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2660, 16 October 1882, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

THIS DAY. fße.'ore His Honor Mr Justice Johuston.] JAHIEBOH T JAUIKSOK. This was a petition for a dissolution of marriage. Mr Joyce appeared for the petitioner, Wm. Jamieson. There was no appearance for the respondent, Kate Louisa Jamieson, and there was no 00-reipondent in tho cause. Mr Jo'yco having read the necessary orders of Court and formal affidavits, read an affidavit by the petitioner whioh set forth that he was married to the respondent on the 28th of September, 1876, in ChristcLuroh, : and oohabited with her at Waltham for a ; fortnight after the marriage, when he left for Kumara, on the West Coaat, to work in a , gold-mining olaim. That there had been no issue, but one child was born before the , marriage of which petitioner admitted he was i the father. The petitioner remained on the Wc st Coast for about two and a half years, during the whole of which time he never once saw his wife, and although he sent her money to pay her expenses to enable her to join him, she never went. When he returned from tho West Coast he sought out his wife, and found her living at servioe in Ohristohurch, and endeavoured to induce her to return to him, but she persistently refused to do so, or to have any communication with him or acknowledge him in any way as her husband. That, since their marriage, petitioner's wife had, on several occasions, committsd adultery with divers men whose names were unknown. That, on the 12;h of August, 1879, tho repondent was delivered of a child, and also on the 17thDaoember, 1881. That sinoe petitioner's j departure for the West Coast in 1876 he had never lived or oohabited with his wife. That all the children were dead. William Jamieson, the petitioner, was called, and deposed to the facts Bit forth in the affidavit. His wife's maiden name was Payne, and they were married at the Presbyterian Manse in Tuam street, by the Rev. Mr Fraser. Did not remember the data. His age was then 22, and his wife's 16. Tho child of whioh he was the father was born three months before the marriage. He married respondent " to make an honest woman of her." His claim on the West Coast turned out a " duffer," but he sent money to his wife for about twelve months after leaving Ckristoburoh, Was in tho hospital for about six months owing to an aocident. Before asking his wifo to return to him had not left her unprovided for for more than about eight months. By his Honor—Tho reason why he had not oummenoed proceedings before was because he had not the means. Ho was a driver, and reoeivod about £1 or 25s a wook. He was prepared to swear that thesa proceedings were not taken by ogreemont with the respondent. Charlotte Hill, a married woman, residing in Armagh street, deposed that she had known the respondent for about eight or ten yeare, and remembered her marriage. She recolleoted the respondent being confined of a female ohild about threo years ago at the house of her sister, Mrs Peart. Attended her as midwife. Anothor child was born in December last. Respondent told her the same man was tho father of both. Did not say who ho war. Alioe Peart, sister of tne respondent, daposed that when tho petitioner left for the West Coast shortly ofter the marriage the respondent stayed with her for about four or five months, and then went to servioe with Mrs Wright in Lichfield street. She :e- ---, mained there for about seven or eight months. After that she went to Mrs Gay's, ; where she stayed for about two years. Sht then stopped with witness a good while, nnti afterwards went to Boot's, the oonf eotione:. s. ' When respondent had a ohild in Auguit, 1879 she was living with witness, and also when the other child was born in Deoembor laßt. Did not think that petitioner b-id lived with respondent after he left for the I West Oosst. He had often expressed a wish I 1 to do so before the birth of tho child in August, but respondent refused. Witness

hneband was a fishmonger. Her titter had been minding the ihop for the laßt two yea This wai all the evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi on the usual terms, LON« T LONG AND BTOZB6. Petition for disßolntion of marriage. Mr Joyoe for the petitioner. There was no appearance for the respondent or co respondent. Mr Joyoe having opened the case, called Bobert Hislop Long, who deposed that he was a barman employed at the City Hotel, Ohrißtohuroh. He was married to Annie Emily Almsworth Clark before the Begistrar at Wellington on the 23rd August, 1879 After the marriage lived in Wellington with the respondent until February, 1880, when they left for Dunedin, and lived there together for about five weeks. Then oame to Christohurch, and stayed together for about ten months. The respondent then went to Dunedin with permission of witness. This was in February, 1881. She went for a holiday and to see some friends. When in Dunedin she took a place as barmaid without the petitioner's! consent. When she left Obristohuroh they were on the best of terms. In June he received information that his wife had left Danedin. Had one letter from bis wife, about a week after she left for Dunedin, but had received no communication from her sinoe. Answered her letter saying he was glad she wsb enjoyimz herself, but had not written to her since.' Had no desire that she should return to him in consequenoe of something he had been told. She was a barmaid before oho was married. Had written to her prohibiting her from taking a place aa bat-maid. When he heard she had done so he took no further action, and had never written to her sinoe.

By his Honor—Had been a barman himself, and knew the extraordinary temptations to which a barmaid was exposed. Respondent's age at the time of the marriage was twenty-two. She was a good looking woman, very passable, and of a lively disposition. His Honor—With a knowledge of all this, did you allow her to remain as a barmaid without expostulating beyond writing the letter already referred to P If you objeoted, why did you not exeroise your marital authority and bring her home P Ton might have sued for a restitution of congugal rights. Mr Joyoe—But, your Honor, a lively barmaid would simply have laughed at him. His Honor—Then men should not marry lively barmaids.

Alexander Stuart Gilchrist, an accountant, deposed that he knew the parties. The corespondent was a billard-marker and betting man. He was not an acquaintance of the petitioner. Saw the respondent and corespondent in Dntedin in August last in Albany strest, Served them with oitationß. They were at the same house, and were living there together. When he served the citation the respondent said the soonor it was done the better, is she wanted to got rid of the petitioner, and that she and Stokes would give no answer. When witness went to the house he asked for Mrs Stokes, and was shown into a room where he saw the respondent. When be served the co-retpondent with the citation he said—"We are not going to defend it." After serving the citations, he went to the house in the evening to Bee if they were living together. He went to the back door, and asked for Mrs Long. When he went into the room, and before anything else w.tb said, the respondent said—" We are living here as man and wife." His Honor—l want to give yoa a caution. You have a chance of an indictment for perjury against you. You say that when you went into the room, before anything elae was said, Mrs Long said—" We are living here as man and wife t" Yes. His Honor—You are the person whom the petitioner consulted and got to draw np all the papers in this oase ? Yes. His Honor—And you oonsider yourself competent to give advioe in suoh a matter ? Yes.

His Honor—Do you think that any man in his senses would believe what you have just said about the admission of Mrs Long P To bis Honor—Ho went down to Danedin to oolleot evidence in the case for the petitioner. Wai sure there was no connivance, because there was no love lost between Mr and Mrs Long. After the respondent said she and Stokes were living together, no further conversation took plaoe. His Honor—l presume you have other evidence Mr Joyoe on this last point, as it is impossible to credit the testimony of this witness.

Mr Joyce—Yes, your Honor. The witness has had too muoh beer.

James Gardiner, theatrical agent, deposed that he knew the petitioner asd respondent. Had somo conversation with the latter in Dunedin, about five weeks ago at the Rainbow Hotel. She was not barmaid there, but was sitting in tho parlor. Saw her again a few days afterwards in Princes street. She told Mm she had been served with a notice of divorce. She said she was not going to appear. She said she was living with Stokes, and. was very happy. Several people called her Mrs Stokes. She asked witness if he oonld give Stokea a billet, as he was doing nothing. James Forward said he knew the parties. Saw Mrs Long at Oamaru in the end of July. She was behind the bar in the billiardroom of the Royal Hotel, and Stokes had the billiard-room, and was marker. They were regarded aa man and wife. They lived in a private house. Respondent told him so. This closed the oase. Hia Honor thought tho circumstancss might lead to the inference that there was an intention on the part of the petitioner and respondent to get rid of each other. In these cases, where the Court was required to act both as Judge and jury, a very heavy responsibility was thrown upon it, and it might be the oause of immense misohief among the people if the business wore conducted too lightly ; and when he saw proceedings got up by the advice and interference of such an utterly unsatisfactory witness as the man Gilchrist, he was inclined to pause before giving a decision. He would take time to consider.

The Court adjourned until Monday, the 30th inst.