DIVORCE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1690, 21 April 1886, Page 2

DIVORCE.

ROBERTS V. ROBERTS AND JOHN WILKS f CO-RESPONDENT.) Mr Baker appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Hutchison for co-respondent. ;' The following jury were empanelled : — J. Windsor, A. Callaerhan, T. Allen, J. Manley* S. Richards, P. Galvin, W. H. Nettleship, F. R. Parked,. E. Perry, J. Hatcher, and E Perritt. Mr Parkes was chosen Foreman. . Mr Baker stated that the details were few, as the parties were h'viner in open adultery. The- petition set forth that the parties were married on the 24th June; 1873, by the Rev. J. Law, at Wairarapa, by which marriage there had been issue three children ; that on the sth of March, 1883, Catherine Lavinia Roberts left her husband, and since that Mine had lived in open adultery with the co-respondent. The questions to be submitted would be — (1) Whether the adultery had been committed ; (2) Whether with any other ' person than the co-respondent"; and (3) | what damages, if any, was petitioner en- ; titled to. .'■;.. John Roberts, the husband, gave evi- 1 dence as to tie time his wife had left him, and her conduct since then. Mr Hutchison asked to be allowed to postpone the cross-examination, as .there j was no evidence of adultery against the co-respondent. ' . His Honor agreed to this course. On looking at the marriage certificate His Honor said he did not consider it sufficient for the purposes of evidence, not bearing the Registrar-General's stamp. The clergyman's certificate was not sufficient. The law provides for one means of proof, and that must be given, unless witnesses of the marriage could be called. ' Mr Baker replied that he had a witness to prove the marriage. ' Aft§r hearing a quantity of evidence, both for and against, the jury were addressed by counsel and His Honor, and then retired to consider their verdict;. On resuming at 2.30 the foreman of the jury came in to ask a question as to costs going against the co-respondent, to which His Honor replied that, in any \ case, the co-respondent would have to "4>ear costs; . I A few minutes later the jury returned with a verdict for one shilling damages against the co-respondent. The decree nisi was granted.— Herald.