Divorce Cases.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7316, 9 June 1902, Page 3

Divorce Cases.

A short sitting o£ the Divorce. Court was held at Wellington on Saturday before the Chief Justice. Aaron Sampson, of Palmerston (Mr tvirk (or the petitioner! applied Im- a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with John Conway. Tlie parties were married in 1579, and lived together for about eighteen months, and two children had been born after the separation occurred. A decree nisi was granted, with ifilo 15.s costs and disbursements against the co-respondent. Thomas J. Clapham, farmer of Apiti (represented by Mr Beere), sought a dirorce on the ground of his wife's udul tery with Harold Liddle. with whom she was said to be now living iv Tasmania. The parties were married at Masterton in ISSO, and Mrs Claplmm left her home in 1000. A decree nisi was granted, with £15 15s cost against the co-respondent. (Per Press Association). LsvKKCAiion.r., Saturday. In (he divorce ease, Marjory M. j Sutherland v. llobert .Sutherland, tlie wife's petition, on the ground of iidul-n-ry, Mr Justice Denniston refused to {{rniit a decree. The parties were married n week before last Chri ii.Ti*, the petitioner bring only lij ycirs of aye, to liide a supposed sli;nn(*. Tiie iv-pondenf is the ..-0.-ich drinv to 1".-! i K-.-*iit. r,vl he. hud ii.it provided a iionio nor niaiiitrn-ir.oe vvhi.'ii it turned out Ihi'.t liU wife was jiot enreiiili!. His llonorsuid tint as the law stood the Courteould bo used as a convenience in rases lite this. The man who had been employed to vraieli respondent, gave evidence thnt immediately ho reached iVaikaia, he avx Sutherland commit adultery. Hi- Honor " Do you think I am going to j^rant a divorce on evidence like tlnit!" Tiie yivl had married solely to avoid supposed disgrace, and the man to save the cost of keeping the child, and now lie wanted to use the machinery of this Court to gat a dirorce. If adultery was committed at all, it was probably to make evidence for thia case. The machinery of tho Court is used enough for this purpose, but this is going too far. The case is dismissed.

On the question of cost* in the Kempton divorce ease, His Honor refused Borne, the co-respondent, bis costs as

against the netitioner, although counsel ■n u'ldivvr him from the case. His Honor said that Borne had taken a principal ]i;irt in what appeared like a conspiracy to coerce ti young man into an extraordinary marraqv. His conduct was extremely discreditable, and barely failed of being sufficient evidence of adultery go to the jury, j* s regarded the woman, His Honor said it was clearfthat she and co-respondent were combining, not to prevent the divorce, luit to protect the co-respondent. The second day's proceedings were m the interest of corespondent, and only one day's costs -.vould bo allowed to respondent, who got £2i> and disbursements.