DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4420, 20 May 1875, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

'Wednesday, May 19. (Before his Honor' the Chief Mr. Justice Johnston, and Mr. Justice Gillies,) EODLKES V. FOULKES AND CROSS. This was a motion for decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of the respondent’s adultery with the co-respondent. The facts of the case having been answered affirmatively by the jury before whom the case was tried, it remained for petitioner s counsel to satisfy the Court that there had been neither collusion, condonation, nor laches on the

part of the petitioner. Mr. Moorhouse appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Allan applied for permission to appear in the case, for the purpose of arguing the question of costs on behalf of the co-respon-dent. The Court declined to allow Mr. Allan to appear during the discussion upon the general merits of the case, but intimated its willingness to permit him to enter an appearance on behalf of Cross when the question of costs was raised. The petitioner, examined by Hr. Moorhouse, gave evidence to the following effect : AVas married to my wife in December, 1868 ; lived with her for two and a-half years, and left her

in October, 1866, on account of her connection with Cross. Upon her confession -that what I had heard was true, I left her immediately and went to Auckland. From Auckland I went to Nelson, and from there I went to Hokitika, having taken the wrong boat. I intended to go to 'Dunedin, and ultimately did go there. When I left home, I left my children my house and everything in it. I remained two years in Otago, "and then went to Melbourne, where I stayed two years, during which time I was in bad health. I was downhearted, and could not settle myself on account of this trouble on my mind. I then came back to Dunedin and went to work fencing up country, but could not accumulate money until within

the last two years. That was the reason I never prosecuted this suit ■ —l was without means. So soon as I had the means I applied to Mr. Moorhouse. By the Court: I saw my wife in 1868, when I passed through Wellington. I'found that she was living with Cross. X and a friend went to see my children, but I did not ask her to live with me again, nor was I alone with her during the visit I never sent any money for the maintenance of the children, and took no steps to obtain custody of the children until I came to Wellington in December last, when I was advised not to do so. I had £4O when I first consulted a lawyer with reference to this casl? Sime 1866 I never had more than £ls or £2O until the time I speak of. I have not engaged to marry any other woman,' nor have I lived with any woman except my wife. 'I have had no communication whatever-nrttb Cross. When I saw my wife nothing was said about getting a divorce, but a friend advised me to see a solicitor. Mr. Moorhouse, in reviewing the actions of the petitioner, contended that , his evidence negatived the presumption that there had been laches on his part. His wife’s infidelity

had given hi™ such a shock that he had for years been unable to face the question of severing their marital alliance by judicial proceedings, and he found it impossible to remain sufficiently long at any one occupation to enable him to raise means to conduct divorce proceedings. Moreover, the petitioner was an ignorant man, and was under the impression that so large a sum was required to carry on a suit that he was hopeless of ever succeeding, until he consulted a friend in Wellington, who advised him to see a solicitor. Mr. Moorhouse then cited cases from “ Pritchard’s Digest,” to show that delay in instituting proceedings was not deemed sufficient ground for

refusing the decree. The Court commented upon the length of time that had been allowed to elapse between the commission of the adultery and the institution of proceedings ; but ultimately The decree nisi was granted, and made returnable at the next sitting of the Court. BPITTAL V. SPIXTAL AND ANOTHER.

This was a motion for a decree nisi for judicial separation, on the ground of adultery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court at Nelson, and a verdict found in favor of the petitioner. Mr. Hart examined the petitioner, at the conclusion of which

The decree nisi was granted, and made returnable at the next sitting of the Court. The Court then adjourned.