Wellington Divorce Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 19, 20 June 1885, Page 2

Wellington Divorce Court.

," T. Wednesday, JimE }7. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Rich- ■ ■;••■•■ ;•:■•... . mond.) -'■■•;'_ f ';Sin*H y.; smitb and. strike. - vMt ' J hh c %j^V}Se§. Ipnjbghedf of plaintiff for & ( decree, . nisi, ' 'yriiK. costs, . m tho. .dHBW»j»J*, y- .§ro#h,;and. Strik* .(co-respondent), whipfii 'wa? 'heard at; a previous, sitting of '^he Court.' '.' ':- , , Mr Travers.whp. appeared. "for the feapondenfc and co-respondent, opposed the application, on this ground, that, the hnsbarid.by cruelty to his wire had conducted, to. her adultery. There was no evi- ' deuce that the wife had been guilty of misconductr The husband left .her to Jier pwn devices for a period of ten Eaqnths. , ... . , " " : -- i His Honor:' Why the jury gave damageg for so much'l do not knovr. I suppose. they did it . from - the morality point: of. yieWi. I would not have given 50 pence, -it. was practically a fine for forrnatioriK .In refusing a new trial, ,1 did go because I thought it was for the jury to assess the damages, and not for me. It i& absurd, to think that parties m the position of petitioner and respondent can bo looked upon as husband and wife • but as .the law stands, : Ido not see how I can grant; the decree. -It is one of those •difficult, social problems;, that I do nqt. • feel, called upon to solve. : -..Judgment -was reseryed, .. . ... . ; V' FORDHAM V. FORDHAM AKD BOYD. .'-'>: •■ Mr Travers applied. to have the wife's costs -taxed. It was not improbable that the matter would be settled out of Court, but still it was . advisable to have the costs. settled. - ' .. Tlie. Registrar said he could not tax a prospective bill of costs, but he intended to recommend that £40 should be paid into Court. •■ . " . ' His Honor, ordered the bill to be taxed, as asked for.