The Wanganui Divorce Case.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 96, 26 March 1885, Page 3

The Wanganui Divorce Case.

Zi&QGktiLktiM -MbLBLLAN.- ' ThisM^s Wp'elition from the wife on the plea o ferfolty. . The husband denied the plea, anfL&dduced evidence to prove infidelit^on'tW petitioner's part. The case Wi^feard^bef ore his Honor the Chieyfoßjj^amilextended pver Monday, Tuesday, .and .Wednesday. At 7 o'clock last ev^'nihgjthe evidence having beea I csUc'lß4e€l, Mr i -Travers addressed the jury at considerable Jength onbehalf oE the; respondent, -lie was followod by Mr Ba^T&jsp'n, Jfpr^ se petitioner, who. "said ha qqbr'a&qdV $$ jury to answer the charg^pf cruelty. .He wished them to say; with' regard J to ftiie charge of adultery, that there was not sufficient evidence. His client did not press for a dissolution of marriage; as she had no wish itp'ltfarry again. , . His Honor.ihaving exhatisti vely summed up Jthe evidence, the jury retired at 9.4s,'(Veturniag'i<ytp coiirt In about an hour ' wijh '^ f piiowing findingß :— :. , , .THE-VKBPtCT,; , That the respondent. David McLellan, mtW month of April, 1879, did take the petitioner, Evi* McLellan, by the throat -"'irad threaten her life^. and otherwise "treat her druelly. *"■■"* , Tlflit ;in* Marcty 1881, the respondent wentiritd'petitibdeV's ropn*, and held a knife^tb'heirthroditj arid threatened to cut her throat with the; fcnifo. : The jury retarded a' negative to ' *the charge of adultery t bf consentof plaintiff's counsel. , !' ,'tHE iHDS^AKDjs' PETITION. Hiailonbf vt»aid ; that he apprehended the qneatioDspfi jndiyial separation would be dealt with .entirely; irrespective of the finding ©f ttusfjurywif He'understood.tbat it was not intended to go on with the other suit./ rj-; .£ / .y , . . v Mr TraVers"said that he intended* under the circdiristances—iif his friend would not agree to the other suit being decsed\by:.the^ present , jury, on the evidence 1 already given-=-rtP, go* on with the other case before another, jiiry. - Mr Hutchison said that as he bad not. been $te. tpjconsult lub client oh the matter, he was not willing to agree to the^rtgpfostj.Vn 1 of Mr -Trovers ; but he thought ;iti could be left to the court to decideu.t-i^ '.':■ '> ,: v . ... '•■ . • , Hi«Hpnpr ; Ba|d that the court could t Mv i'wpuld be Content to put 4hc J ißßpe'|)f'tfee' ! wtfe'^-.;a ; dult6ry to the' pres&ifc'ju'Vy:^ Tliey/coiifd bo discharged * till the following inornint;,aiui re-sworn, and-lhen tiecide ,. tli« ;: case on the eyidenco before them,, ;, Mr Hujehispn .said" that was a new position, and was nottho one agreed to by his friend and, hiniself. The .Court, then :idjoiirned.