DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5507, 20 November 1878, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

Tuesday, November 19. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice John*ton, Mr. Justice Gillies, and Mr. Justice VVilliam*). MATTHEWS (PETITIONER) MATTHEWS (RESPONDENT.) This was a petition hr night by the wife for a dissolution of her marriage with respondent on the grounds of cruelty, adultery, and bigamy on his part. Mr. Izard appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent was unrepresented. Margaret Matthews, the petitioner, was called. She stated ; I and Charles Matthe v* were married on 15th February, 1860, by the Rrv. Mr. Ward. This is the certificate, produced, Mr. Justice Johnston pointed out that the* certificate produced was merely a copy of the minister’s record, without the usual certificate of the Registrar-General, as provided under the Act.

Mr. Izard thought it would have been regarded as sufficient. The Chief Justice had never known a certificate produced other than that provided under the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act. Mr. Izard undertook t« produce a proper certificate.

Expla nation continued: My father and my • cousin were the witnesses. The issue of the marriage was one child, which died a few days after its birth. A year and two days after we were married he left me. I do not know the reason ho left me. He gave no reason; we had no quarrel ; ke left me with £1 and the furniture in the house. I let the house furnished to a weekly tenant. I had two letters from him, and the next thing I heard was that he was charged with bigamy-in Christchurch, haviug married a woman named Mary Jane Burgess. He was convicted ou his own confession. I was in the Court at the time ho was convicted. A question here arose as to what evidence the Court could receive of the conviction. The record of the Court at Christchurch could not be produced, the Registrar holding that he had no power to part with possession, and the Court here doubted its ability to receive oral evidence as to the contents of a document still in existence.— Mr. Justice Johnston said no doubt the law as it at present stood was faulty in this respect.—The Chief Justice suggested that au examined office copy of the proceedings and judgment should be sufficient.—Mr. Justice Williams: Yes, if a person who cau prove authenticity of the copy is produced before «*.—After considerable discussion a copy of the proceeding*, certified to by Mr. Malet, was received as evidence. Examination continued : He was imprisoned for five years. He had been in gaol several times previously. After the trial for bigamy he asked me to forgive him, as he bad done wrong in deserting me. I promised to do bo. I have seen him. within the past sir weeks. He is keeping a barber’s shop in Willis-atrecfc. He then asked me to live with him again. I refused. That was since these proceedings were commenced. After the bigamy I told him at Christchurch that I would lire with him again when he came out of gaol if he became a better man. I heard in 1807 that he had been unfaithful After be had been away from me 18 mouths I forgive him Dad sent him money to bring him back After he came out of prison the last time he did not correspond with me. I heard he was living with another woman.

Frederick (Jules gave evident to prove acts of adultery on the part of respondent with a woman named Laurence.

P. A Jones gave similar evidence in respect to respondent's conduct with regard to Charlotte Sharande. They were in his employ as man and wife for three months. After that they left. Re took ft barber's ahop in WiUiS'.'treet, and she played the piano et the Theatre Royal. Subsequently she want to Australia'.

The Chief Justice: I think the petitioner has made out her case. No doubt there was continued desertion until the commencement of the present proceedings. As to the adultery there is sufficient proof of that irrespective of the bigamous marriage. I think ■be is entitled to a decree nisi The other Judges concurred.

Decree nisi granted, with costs. BAILET (PETITIONER* BAILEY ‘(RESPONDENT) H* CATHIE (CO-RESPONDENT).

This was a petition by the husband for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery by the wife with the co-rtopoudent in Sydney. Mr. Whittaker (with him Mr. Samuel) for the petitioner ; respondent unrepresented. The facts of the case were that the parties were married at St. Mary's Church, Dublin, Ireland, in March, 1861. They lived together at Auckland, and had issue four children. All went on smoothly for some years, when appellant had his suspicions aroused, and in consequence charged his wife wif h adultery with corespondent. She at once said she would leave him, and she went to Sydney. He should call evidence to show that she was in Sydney living with the co-respondent. Christopher Bailey, examined by Mr. A. Whitaker : I am the petitioner in this case. I reside in Auckland, and am a dairyman. I was married to the respondent in St. Mary's Parish Church, Dublin, by the Rev. Benjamin Gibson, Church of England minister, in 1861. [Certificate of marriage put in.] I am the person mentioned in that certificate, and the respondent is also mentioned, there. Wo reside I in the city of Dublin after our marriage. We left Dublin in 1863, and came to Auckland. We arrived in Auckland on the 12fch October, 1863. I continued to live with my wife in Auckland until the end of 1870. She then left me. I had been at the Thames running firewood ; after I gave that up I came to Auckland, after an absence of a year and a-half. I was backwards and forwards between Auckland and the Thames. I provided for my wife and family. On my return from the Thames, from information X received, I told her I heard that young McOathia was making too free with her, McCathie was a clerk iu Samuel Cochrane and * Son. She denied the accusation, and said that if I continued to make accusations she would leave me. She left mo about August, 1870. She went to reside in Grey-atreet, Auckland, and kept a boarding-house. McCathie lived with her. I was not at all on very bad terms with her. I tried to cloak the affair and prevent the scandal. She continued to keep the lodging house until February 27th, 1871. X accused her again, and she said she would leave. She left by the Hero for Sydney. McCathie did not leave by the same boat. Ha left about eight months afterwards. lam afraid I treated my wife too kindly. I never gave her any causa for complaint. We had four children—two born in Dublin and two bom in Auckland. My wife took the youngest child away with her. I received a letter from her immediately after she arrived in Sydney. That is the only communication I have ever had with her by letter or otherwise. The photograph produced is a photograph of rny wife, taken in Shortland-street, Auckland, in 1870. I had not sufficient means for taking proceedings before. I wanted absolute proof before I commenced a suit.

B.y Judge Johnston : I was at home once in three month-* while at the Thames. I left her sister and her brother in the house with her.

Andrew Wilson, examined by Mr. Whitaker: I am a clerk in an insurance company, residing in Auckland. I previously lived in Sydney. I was intimately acquainted there with the co-respondent. He was living in a house with Mrs. Bailey. He told me she was the wife of a Mr. Bailey,a milkman in Auckland. McCathie told me he was a clerk for Samuel Cochrane and Son. The photogiaph produced is that of Mrs. Bailey. McCathie and she lived together as husband and wife. She went by the name of Mrs. Bailey. 1 saw three children in the house, varying from five years to eighteen months’ old. McCathie said they were his, by Mrs. Bailey. Ho gave me the date when the last child was born. 1 examined the register, and took the copy produced. I don’t know what the children were called. McCathie and Mrs Bailey were reputed as living together as man and wife. Mr. McCathie told mo they were living together as man and wife. There was no other person living in the house. Mrs. Bailey acted as the mistress of the house. The children addressed them as father and mother. They had no servaafcs. They lived in a small cottage.—This was the petitioner’s case. The Court were unanimously of opinion that the adultery had been proved, and granted a decree nisi. DIOBT T. DIOBY AND ALEXANDER. Hr. Chapman appeared for the petitioner. This case was heard at Christchurch before Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury, Tho respondent had entered an appearance and pleaded adultery on the part of the husband (tho petitioner), but the pleas were abandoned, and the jury found for the petitioner on the facts brought out in evidence, deciding that tho respondent had bean guilty of adultery with tho said Mac Alexander, an actor. The cose was adjourned till next day, in order that Mr. Chapman might ascertain from Christchurch whether tho respondent had been served with notice* -