THIS DUNEDIN DIVORCE CASE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2208, 15 April 1880, Page 2

THIS DUNEDIN DIVORCE CASE.

TOWN EDITION.

At the civil sittings of the Supremo Court, Dunedin, on Tuesday the divorce case of Ferguson v Ferguson and Preudivillc was called on. Mr It. Stout conducted the case for the petitioner, and a jury having been empanelled, counsel, alter reading the petition, explained that the case was brought under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 18G7, on behalf of one Hubert Ferguson, a warder of the Dunedin (iaol, for a divorce from his wife, who, it was alleged, had eomnusted adultery with the co-respondent, one John ITendiville, formerly in the police force in Dtago. The acts of the respondent and co-respondent, were denied, and allegations were made by them of adultery and cruelty on the part of the petitioner, the character of a respectable married woman was impugned, and the petitioner was also alleged to have connived at and conduced] to the adultery of which he complained if such had been committed. The petitioner was married to his wife, then Jane Costello, in 18G5, and several children had been the issue of the marriage. The petitioner was a I’roteslant, and came from a different part of Ireland to that which his wife came from. His wife, the respondent, was of the Roman Catholic religion, and the co-respondent, Prcndivillc, was aim a Catholic and came from the same part of Ireland as the respondent. The petitioner in the discharge of his official duties had been away from home a great deal, sometimes at Port Chalmers and at other times at the other side of the harbor, and was unable to be at bis home at any time except on Saturday evenings and Sundays. There could be no doubt that the ease was one of the grossest ever brought before the Court. The petitioner had a nice family, and they were living happily, together, when unfortunately, Prendiville appeared on the scene, destroyed the peace of the home, and led to domestic misery aud to the present proceedings. Hubert Ferguson (the petitioner) gave evidence as follows :—I am married to the respondent, Jane Ferguson. I lirst know the co-respondent about the beginning of January, 1878. He called at my house in company with Mrs Ferguson’s brother. Mrs Ferguson left my house about March, 1878. She took the pledge when Honnebcry was here, and I scolded her for breaking it, and she then left home for a time. She said she stopped at Mrs Llewellyn’s, and I paid for her Board there. I did not know at that time that the co-respondent visited the house. At that time I was working at Poitobcllo, and had no opportunity of returning home from Monday morning to Saturday night. In about the month of May, 1878, I found that Prendiville was visiting at my house. About this time I met Prendiville in the street, and asked him to come down to my house, and he followed rue until he got to Frederick street. He then said “ I won’t go farther till I know what you want with me.” I said, “ You have been to my house when I was not there: I will make you come when I am there; if you don’t come, I’ll take you by the neck aud drag you down.” I said, “ You have been leaving immoral and indecent books with my two girls.” He said, “If you don't persevere now, I’ll promise never to go back to your house again.” I slapped him in the face, and he ran away. From information I received from my children, I found three white shirts which did not belong to me. I burned them, and Mrs Ferguson told me they were Prendiville’s shirts. The next time I saw the co-respondent Mr Caldwell sent me for some duty (in July 1878) aud gave me leave to go home for an hour. This was in the middle of the week. I had not been at home at that time before. I was standing in my bedroom when I saw Prendivillc pass the window and go round to the back of the house. I stepped out on the verandah, and he saw me, and tried to get past where I was standing. I said“l forbade you, and you promised never to come back to my house. Hoav dare you do so!” I dragged him into the back yard, and he offered to swear that it was not for any immoral purpose ho had come. I threatened to take him to Sergeant Deane and give him in charge. Ultimately ho escaped: he called on the servant girl and Airs Ferguson, and they held me while he ran away. My wife was confined of a child in 1878, and I registered it, as bound by law to do. At that time I did not know of anyone more than I have told you. After November, 1878, my wife was given very much to drink, aud neglected her family. In May, 1879, I came homo for a holiday on the Queen’s Birthday. She was out that evening, and had been out the evening before. I spoke to her of neglecting her family aud drinking. I do not remember what she said that night, but the next morning she said she would not stop any longer, and if I gave her what belonged to her she would.'Aot trouble me any

longer. She said she was going to I lie father of her child, arid that he would not let her or it want for anything. 1 said he would send her to Melbourne to his sister, and would follow himself. 1 puthcrthings outside the door and locked it. When I returned I found her in asked her who was the father of the child and she said Mr Prendiville. She the house ; I said she should not come to the children, hut I would give her separate maintenance if she kept away. I gave her 80s and promised her £1 a week. I gave her £1 a week until the 16th of March, when I received information that she and the co-respondent Averc living publicly in adultery. I visited the house, and found that what I had been told was true. Under advice,.! have paid the arrears to the respondent. The petitioner also emphatically and specifically denied all the allegations made against him by the respondent a-ndthe co-respondent, and subsequently the lady, whose character had also been challenged in the same way, cntci’ed the box, and on oath contradicted the allegations made against her. The jury ansAvcred all the issues in favor of the petitioner, and found that there had been no cruelty or adultery on the part of the petitioner. The decree has now to go before the Divorce Court. —“ Otago Daily Times.”