SUPREME COURT.—MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4573, 16 November 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION.

Monday, November 15. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Johnston, Mr. Justice Gillies, and Mr. Justice Williams.) BLAIR (PETITIONER), BLAIR (RESPONDENT.) Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. Por petitioner, Mr. Stout ; respondent, neither appeared, nor was represented. Evidence as to facts had been taken by commission, and there was no denial of the adultery, and numerous affidavits had been filed as to citations, notices, &c., having been duly served. Petitioner was examined by the Court under section 47. The decree nisi was granted as prayed. SPITTAL (PETITIONER), SPIITAL (RESPONDENT.) A rule nisi for the dissolution of the marriage had been granted at the last sitting of the Court, and on the motion of Mr. Hart the decree was made absolute. POCLKES (PETITIONER) FOULKES (RESPONDENT.) Mr. Stafford moved that the decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage, granted last sitting of the Court, should be made absolute. The Court granted the decree as prayed. KNOWLES (PETITIONER) KNOWLES (RESPONDENT.) Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery on the part of the wife, both in Wellington and Melbourne. Evidence as to the facts had been taken by commissions in Melbourne and Wellington, and the question arose, could the Court, on mere affidavits in regard to the adultery at Wellington, grant the decree. Mr. Izard submitted that the Court could do so, and after discussion, the case was adjourned till Monday to enable the learned gentleman to produce authorities for his position, or in the event of his being unable to do so, to produce oral evidence. THOMAS (PETITIONER), THOMAS (RESPONDENT), AND HATES (CO-RESPONDENT). The parties live in Dunedin, and the husband prayed for a rule dissolving the marriage on the ground of adultery. Evidence as to the facts had been taken by a commission, but none of the parties appeared. The Court considered that there was no means of its satisfying itself of the absence of collusion and condonation, and further pointed out that according to the evidence the adultery was alleged to have taken place after the petition was filed. Underthese circumstances their Honors considered the case for a decree had not been made out. Mr. Izard, who appeared in support of the petitioner, obtained permission to make an application on Monday for the case to be either adjourned or dismissed, which he might think best for the interest of his client.

The Court then adjourned till Monday next.