DIVORCE COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 44, 19 January 1884, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT.

(Before His Honour Mr Justice Rich- ; niond.) . .[■ WeLti.vGTON, January 17. ! EDWARDS V. EDWAKDS. This was a" petition by Edward Phillip Edwards fbVdissolVtion ol marriage on. the ground of h is, wije's adulbry with Arthur Edward Ifce_n\iiigtQn. Dr Devine appeared for the petitioner, and Mr H. Gully for despondent. The petition sets forth that the petitioner married Kate Play ford, spinster at the parish church of St Clement's, Hastings, Sussex, on the 24th October, ; 1867; that he afterward" lived with her at Hastings, subsequently, at Bulls: (Rangitikei, New Zealand) and Wei- ! lingtot^ and latterly at Napier-; that 1 there were tive children issue of the marriage, of whom three were still living-, aged 13, 11 and 10 respectively ; . that on the 9th September, 1881; the: respondent left her husband at Napier : without reasonable cause, and, as petitioner was informed, weut to Bulls, where' she has since been cohabiting wj.th Arthu.B • Edward R,einingtqn, chemist j wherefore th.e petitioner prayed for dissolution of ma.triage. The respondent filed an affidavit denying the. allegations contained ,m tlje' petition, and further 4enyin« that she had committed adijltery with the co-repondent, Remington. The petitioner, Edward' Phillip Ddwards, at present , employed by Mr G. Aldous, tpbacoonist, 7 was examined m support of the detition, and gave m evidence the statements therein contained. He said the co-respondent was a next door neighbour of his at Bulls. Prior to that petitioner and his wife go on well together, bub about this time unpleasantness began tq qceur between them, The danger was admitted, and he decided to removo to WollingtonJJ One night, eleven weeks afterwards, she left petitioner ; he found out that she had gone by the .s.s. Jane Douglas^to Foxlon, where tho co-res-pondent met her. She was away from him for the space of 22 months, when she joined petitioner ab Napier. She catne back quite unexpectedly, and pleaded fqy foug-ivenQS^ Qn the strength of her proiuiqe to rqend /her ways, petitioner took her back and cohibited with her again, (five or six weeks later he caught her m the act of writing to the co-respondent. She admitted that she was writing to Remington, but .promised not do it again. Afterward, viz., on the date mentioued m the pe--titition, she got up early m the morning and left for her home by train, taking the ohildren with her, and rejoinei the co-respondent. Petitioner had never cohabited with her since. Cross-examined — Apart from the respondent's connection with Remming Iton he had nothing to complain of her. She, was, however, jealous and hottempered. He had treated her properly m every re^pegf. Mrs'S. Mounsoll reoolleoted the respondent residing at her house for several days at . Beming'tenV, request, ?After that respondent iventfto reside -totrßulls with tho co-respondent. Some time after this the respondent expressed a • desire tq return tql^eivhqjbau.tj, as s,he. did not wjsbf her children tq know hqw she was living. , Mrs Elizabeth Smythe, mai^n naqe Hancock, statee that m 1881 she was a servant m the Victoria Hotel,Napior, and had known the respondent and corespondent to live together there between February and Seprember of thai year. q. R afaun^e}}, afc nres.ent ci}rrying on biisiiiess as a (qbacconist at Masterton, deposed that he had also known the respondent and co-respondent living together as man and wife. A decree nisi was graqtedj with costs against the co-respondent,