DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5208, 30 November 1877, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

Thursday, November 29. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Gillies, Mr. Justice Johnston, and Mr. Justice Williams.) • COOLEY V. COOLEY. This case was resumed from the previous day, and Philip John Murtagh (originally made co-respondent in the case) was examined as a witness. He positively denied that any improper intimacy had taken place between Mrs. Cooley and himself. ,He had only met her three or four times, and never alone. On the 29th January, one of the days ou which it was said he had been in her company at the Hutt, he was in Wellington until three o’clock in the morning, having come in to enter some horses for the races, and the entries were not completed until midnight, after which he rode slowly to the Hutt. Some discussion here took place as to whether the case should be further proceeded with. There was no evidence of adultery on the part of Mrs. Cooley, except by her own confessions, and these she swore were extorted from her by the threats of her husband, who desired to lay a trap for Murtagh. It was decided, however, to go on with the case. Mrs. Richmond, the mother of Mrs. Cooley, deposed that her daughter and son-in-law did not live happily together. Mrs. Cooley’s husband neglected her, and she often came to witness’ place in a state of destitution and stayed there, and during that time the petitioner did not contribute to her support. On one occasion petitioner told witness that his wife had owned to him that there had been an improper intimacy between her and Murtagh, but on witness asking her daughter if such was the case, the latter denied it altogether. Other corroborative evidence was adduced, and the Court dismissed the decree, with costs, their Honors respectively stating their opinions regarding the facts of the case as submitted. His Honor the Chief Justice said that the case had bee a narrowed down to one as between the petitioner and respondent, and it appeared to have been based upon the repeated admissions of the latter that she had been guilty of impropriety with Murtagh. It did not, however, follow that these admissions could be received as satisfactory testimony in • themselves, as it was possible: that she had been induced to make them, and other evidence having been offered in support of that hypothesis, a serious doubt had arisen in his mind as to whether they could be received, and especially seeing that nothing had been shown in support of them. His Honor here reviewed a portion of the evidence given, and stated as ins opinion that those who had obtained the admissions had gone to the house at the instigation of the petitioner, and that it could not be supposed she wished to get a divorce in order to marry Murtagh, as she knew he was keeping company with another, and was actually engaged to bo married to her. He therefore thought it would be unsafe to act upon the admissions, and thedecree would therefore be refused. Mr. Justice Johnson stated generally that he was of a similar opinion, and he fully coincided with what had been stated that the petitioner had failed to make out his case. He fully believed that perjury had been committed on one side or the other, although it was not for the Court to inquire into that subject then. His opinion, after reviewing all the circumstances, was that the respondent had more reason toseek a divorce now, seeing that she would be required to return to him. Mr. J ustice Gillies fully coincided with the views already expressed, and he was followed by Mr. Justice Williams in the same course.