DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5508, 21 November 1878, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT.

Wednesday, November 20. (Befpre their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Johnston, Mr. Justice Gillies, and Mr. Justice Williams). DIGBY V. DXGBY AND ALEXANDER. This case was adjourned till Monday, on the application of Mr. Chapman, in order that service on the respondent might be proved. JEFFREY V. JEFFREY AND OTHERS. Mr. Travers applied for a decree nisi. The case is a Christchurch one, heard before Mr. Justice Johnston at Christchurch. An argument occurred as to whether the finding of the Court at Christchurch could be recognised by the Full Court. Neither the respondent nor co-respondent pleaded. The question now arose whether, if there was nothing to properly go to a jury, the evidence taken at Christchurch had been rightly received. If there was no question rightly before the jury at Christchurch then their finding went for nothing. The Court were of opinion that they were not bound by the finding of the jury in the Court below, but they could receive and act upon the evidence taken at Christchurch. The evidence taken at Christchurch was then read. The parties were married in England in 1874, and came to New Zealand in the Geraldine Paget. On board respondent became very familiar with a person named Murphy, a seaman. During his absence from Home in the colony Murphy also visited her. She afterwards lived at Timaru with a storekeeper named Evans and his wife. Robert Jeffrey was called. Had heard the evidence read, which was correct. He had no collusion with the respondent. The Court granted the decree as prayed for, on the usual terms. RYLEY V. EXLBY.. This is a Dunedin case, by the wife against the husband, on the grounds of adultery, cruelty, desertion, and non-observance of a deed of separation. Mr. Sievwright for the petitioner. The evidence bad been taken, by commission. A question now arose as to the jurisdiction of the Court, it being difficult to prove the domicile of the respondent. Mr. Sievwright contended that as the parties had been resident in New Zealand, and had been married in the colony, the Court had jurisdiction. The Court thought it necessary to show the domicile of the parties at the time the suit was instituted.

The petitioner, Charlotte Byley, Avas called, and deposed : She came to Victoria, and then to Invercargill, at 10 years of age, in 1856. Her father died there about nine years ago. Was married in 1863. [Certificate produced.] Her husband came out as surgeon of a ship, and commenced practice in Invercargill. After remaining there for a little while her husband went to Queenstown, and she followed him in December, 1861, and remained till March. He practised there as a surgeon also, successfully. He then Avent to Hokitika, calling at Dunedin on his Avay to give evidence in a stabbing case. He directed her to go to Invercargill to her mother for a change. AfterAvards Avent to Hokitika of her own motion ; her husband did not Avaut her to go, saying the place was uncivilised. She went there and lived Avith him, and her baby was born there. He began to ill-use her there. Left Hokitika in 1867 for Invercargill, on account of continued ill-treatment. She had his consent to go. She Avas aAvay for tAvo years—tAvelve months in Invercargill and twelve months in Melbourne. He remained in Hokitika, and came to Melbourne in 1869, when she returned with him to Hokitika. Remained in Hokitika till September 1869. AfterAvards her husband Avent to, Auckland, and from there to the Thames. He did not practise there. Was about four months in the province of Auckland., Her husband had a deed of separation draAAm up in Auckland. He had threatened her life. He went to Fiji, leaving ten pounds in the Bank of New Zealand, Avhioh he directed Avas to be used in paying her fare to Invercargill. She then went to Invercargill to her mother. AfterAvards Avent to Melbourne to her sister, and remained with her for tAvelve months. Then returned to her mother, remaining with her for a year. She Avent back to her step-sister, and lived Avith her till March, 1877, when her husband came over from Adelaide. Got a Avarrant out against him for desertion. He gave her £5 Avhile he was in Melbourne. Had not lived with her husband as man and vrife since he left for Fiji. He begged her to let him off, saying he would SAvear he had offered her a home. Did not hear of him again till she heard he was practising in Grenfell, New South Wales, in February, 1878. Had been Avorking as a dressmaker for her living. The child was in her husband’s possession ; he had stolen the child from her Avhen he was going to Fiji. Had no positive knowledge of herself of the adultery with Mrs. George. Intended to go back to Melbourne after this case was over ; did not at present propose to return to her mother at Invercargill. Had only lately made up her mind to return to Melbourne, as her brother-in-law offered her a situation in his shop. Was still someAvhat unsettled as to her intention to go finally to Melbourne. Mrs. George Avas a friend of her husband’s, and Avas under his treatment. She came to the house on several occasions, and she would not receive her. While she Avas aAvay Mrs. George came to the house Avith her portmanteau, and her husband said he could not turn her out. Mrs. George remained in the house for a fortnight. Her husband told her Mrs. Georgehadbeautiful limbs, —comparing them with her own. Had no knowledge of herself as to her husband’s adultery in Fiji. A few weeks after marriage her husband slapped her in the face ; he was a very violent man. In June, 1864, he sent her to her father’s to horroAV some money, and Avhen she did not get it he pushed her and took up a log of Avood to strike her. A feAV weeks after her baby was born he Avanted her to clean his boots ; she Avould not do it, and he struck her. They had no servant. His income at that time Avas about £IOOO a year. In December 1869, on board the John Penn, in Wanganui, he struck her in the face, and gave her a black eye, because the child cried. The captain interfered. In Auckland, in 1870, heAvanted to take away the child, and she Avould not allow him. He then struck her on the back of the head Avith his walking stick. He threatened her Avith a revolver Avhioh he kept under his pillow. At Hokitika he threatened to poison her, saying he Avanted to get rid of her. He was given to drink, having to leave the hospital on that account. The landlady, Mrs. Cowan, had him arrested as a lunatic, and he Avas confined for a fortnight. When he came out a deed of separation was prepared. He sent her no means Avhatever from Fiji. The only money she received Avas the £ls she had mentioned. Her husband had promised to pay her £1 a AA T eek, but had not done so. It Avas witness Avho proposed the separation. Had not previously taken proceedings against her husband, because she bad no means.

The evidence of J. S. Butters, of Melbourne, formerly of Levuka, Fiji, taken by commission, was then read. The evidence showed that respondeat lived with a Mrs. Burners in Levuka, presumably as man and wife. The evidence of Walter Kingston and another witness, which also went to show that Mrs. Bumorz and respondent lived in Levuka together as man and wife, was read. The Chief Justice said the case presented considerable difficulty in the question of domicile. Would Mr. Sievwright like that the matter'should be argued ? It was an important and difficult point. Mr. Sievwright would like to have the matter argued, and in that argument should wish, if possible, to have assistance. The case was adjourned till Monday, so that the deed of separation might bo produced, and light, if possible, be thrown on the question of domicile. The Court then adjourned till Monday next.