SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3759, 9 March 1907, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Palmerston, Yesterday. The trial of Mrs Jane Martin on a charge of alleged, arson was concluded. After heading lengthy evidence, the jury retired to consider its verdict -at 11.5, and shortly before 2 o’clock returned a verdict of not guilty.

Divorce Cases. Marshall Knight v. Clara Amelia Knight. Application for restitution of conjugal rights. An order was made that the respondent should return within ( one month from the service of the order.

Susan Elsie Thornburn v, Arthur John Thornburn. Application for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruelty. No defence was filed. Petitioner was married to respondent in 1891, and there were nine children of the marriage. Respondent for years past had been drunk nearly every day of the week, except Sunday, and petitioner with her family had been kept for years by her owft family, respondent, owing to his excesses, not being able to maintain her. He had met with accidents through his drinking habits, and was at present in gaol for damaging property. Instances of cruelty were detailed by petitioner, who said respondent had also threatened to shoot her. She asked for the custody of the children. Decree nisi granted to be made absolute in three months.,

■■••••ifem3r v> 3ailey v. Ethel Bailey respondent, and Herbert Tonks co-respondent. Application for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery.

Petitioner was married to Ethel May Cornwall in 1898, and there were three children of the marriage. When he was married petitioner was 68 years of age and respondent was 16 years of age. He and his wife lived together, with. 1 one exception, for five months, during which his Wife was away, till 1905. In April of that year respondent went away to Palmerston and a deed of separation was eventually drawn up and signed. Since then he had seen her at intervals, and she had told him that she was living with corespondent at Linton. Respondent was previously a domestic servant. She was most extravagant. His income could not stand bills of £s7 for clothes in three months. He complained of this and also of her going away with other men. Petitioner allowed her £1 a week for the'support of the children. He would have preferred to keep his wife at home if she would have lived a proper life. The respondent, a woman of about 22 years of age, said she was 15 years and nine months old when she married. She was in petitioner’s employ prior to his late wife’s clfeath, and remained in the house after the late Mrs Bailey’s death in accordance with the latter’s wish and petitioner’s request. When she first went away it was because he was always accusing her of misconduct. Witness denied being guilty of improper behaviour. The jury after an absence of 25 minutes, returned with a verdict that respondent and co-respon-dent had each been guilty of adultery. Order for a decree nisi, with costs against the co-respondent.