SUPREME COURT. DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 250, 28 March 1888, Page 6

SUPREME COURT. DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

AucKtiAM), March 24. Lykcji (petitioner), and Donis Lynch (respondent). — Application ior a decreenisiontheground of cruelty andadulteiy The following evidence was given by Mrs Lynch after wo went to press yesterday :- He struck me about the head and face, in consequence of which I was laid up lor six ■week:-. Alter that, in the City Hotel, respondent struck me on the back ot the head \uth a poucr, which caused mo lo be deal in the lett ear. Subsequently he knocked me down, jumped upon me, and kicked meat the cottage. When wo were in the l'rownoial llo'el in 1885, he M nick Margaiet across t lie iocv, smashed theelnld"s feoUui'4 bottle, snatched the child iiom me, andttaited bt-.it ing her. 1 wa-obliged tomn into! ho next-door neighbours house, and slept thcie all in^hr. When 1 icsided with my mothei in Chapel-stieet he bloke m the frontdoor. JLe hud a ie\ol>ci, and said he would shoot mi. Ms eldest blather got up and took the reutlwi away iiom him. On the 6th August. 1885, my ln^Unul went away io .Melbourne, and 1 luixe not cohabited with him since lh.it time. .For six yeui.s my husband was never sober for one week. On one occasion w hen 1 was lading fiom my husband 1 slept nuclei the bed, because 1 w;i.s ahaul ot wluit lie miuht ■do to me "v\ ben he uime homo. My luiyband icturned fiom .Melbourne in about four mouths, and sta)ed heio for about a year, attcr which he loturncd to Mclbouiuc. That Win about January of last \c;.r. 1 .have not, the slightest idea whete he i» jio\v : it w,i^> lepoited he way u^h'M to h eland. In addition to the acts mentioned, I havo been subjected to similar ill treatment at \auoiis times. — liy 1 1 is Honor : The respondent accused mo ot untadhfulnes.s oa some occasions, but he \\:is always drunk when he did so. 1 never ga\o him any giouuds ior diing so, and Tviien he %\ as sober he said he was sorry for making such accusations. - Evidence continued : I have seen the person Mary Cassidy, named in the petition, at the Rogi&tiai's Oflice since these pioeeedings were commenced. J ha"se heaid mv husband speak of a person named Lookwood.—Constable Edwaid La'ult deposed: I know tlio petitioner and lesponuent m this suit. One night when I was on duty in Vulcan Lane, about the middle of March, 1883, at 3 o'clock in the morning;, 1 heaid quairelling- at the Occidental Hot*]. Shortly af tens aids Mis Lynch came into Vulcan Lane. Kei face «n< .swollen, appaiently iiom the c fleets ot blows. 1 -saw the husband at the hotel door, and noticed that he was mad with drink. I heard Mis Lynch say to her husband, "You would hase nnudeied me long since if it, had not been for the law." 1 ha\e seen L\ nch frequently the worse for liquoi toi a. nuui'oer"bt your*.. He was a man ot \ery quanelsome habits. — James Campbell deposed : L was baunan at the Occidental Hotel foi ovei 12 mouths. That was in 1883. During- tnat lime Mr Lynch was always drunk. Un the 17th March of that yeai 1 was awakened in the middle ot the night by Mr.-> Lynch calling out for assistance, because Lynch was killing her. Xe\t morning Mi« Lynch had a black eye, and her iace was- badly swollen. On another occasion 1 saw Lynch mi ike his wife on the face in the dining-room, and she had given him no provocation. — David O'ouk, vupwiight, depo-ed : When Mis Lynch and her husband resided in Custom-house-street, about Ji\e )eai& ago, I heard a noise theie, and also cries oi a woman for help. I went into the house and saw the husband standing over his wife. Sho was on the floor, and he v 'us kneeling on the top of her. She called on me to protect her from being killed. I took hold of Lynch by the slee\e, and he pitched me on the floor. I saw Lynch kick his wife on that occasion, and shortly after that I fcasv that Mis Lynch had two black eyes. — William Kichaid Lock wood, caneworker, deposed : I knew the respondent Lynch for up wauls of four years. I also know a poison named Mary Cassidy, who lived in Grey stieet in 1886. She moved to Albert-stieet in 1887. I accompanied the husband of Mrs Lynch to that house, and also to the house in Grey-street. S left Lynch on each occasion, and he stopped all night. Maiy Cassidy was at this time reputedly living with a cabdriver. — At this stage, Mr Brassey asked leave to put in the evidence ot Mary Cas&idy in writing. — His Honor said that it must be shown that the witness was without the jurisdiction of the Court. — Mr Brassey asked for leave to let this matter stand | over till the morning in order that inquiries could be made in that direction, and the request wat granted, — Mr Brassey then asked permission to put :n a letter written by Lynch to Dr. Laishley respecting the custody of the cbildien.— His Honor : Did make inquiries where Lynch is '(( — Mr JBrapsey : I did not leceive the letter until after tho petition was tiled. — His Honor: iJut it was your duty to have made inquiries, and you should have done so. — Mr Brassey then asked thab the further hearing of the petition might stand over till to-morrow. —Hie Honor: Well, the *Court is adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow. You really must be more particular, Mr Brassey, in bringing your facts in proper iorm. —W r Brassey : There is certainly no (provision in the uiles. — His Honor : But you tmu«t know that it was one of the common principles of law, Mr Brassey. Depositions of that sort aie not admitted except in the absence of witnesses from the jurisdiction .of the Court, or in consequence of ill-health. Especially in cases like this it is necessary to have witnesses cross-examined, in order tnat the Courc may be satisfied on many points— as to colluHon, for instance —Mr JBras&ey : The witness was about to \ leave tho colony, and we had to get the evidence in writing. — His Honor reiterated j that Mr Brassey should exercise moie care, and the Court then adjourned. The .case was resumed at noon to-day. "The evidence of Mary Cassidy was taken. She deposed >that she knew both petitioner and respondent in this case, and that the respondent had .cohahated with her botli in <Grey-street and Albent-streeb in 1886 and 1387. Sheiiiad received jjo payment nor prosmiseof payaoent for giving evidenccin Court. His Honor said itbafc the evidence of the anarriage, adultery, and .cruelty was conclusive. The cruelty was of u very gross •character, and he wae justified in gi anting 41 decree niii to Le made absolute at the expiry of 6 months. Helk.v Kelly {petitioner) v. Adam 3£hjlly (respondent). Application for judicial separation. — Mr Theo. Cooper appeared for the petitioner and Mr J. jVL Alexander for the respondent. — In opening his case Mr Cooper stated that tlio petitioner was absent from the colony. He did nofc know whether the question of jurisdiction would be raised, but if it was ho had no doubfc on the point. The petitioner was not iv the jurisdiction of the Court but tb6* respondent was nnd the domicile of the respondent was, the domicile of the pecitioner. The next question to be proved was fchab the petitioner had been outside the jurisdiction of the Court since her evidence was taken ,by commission. The question, and the gravest question, to be satisfied was that the facts disclosed were euch ac to entitle the petitioner to a decree of

judicial separation. Tho grcmnds set forth weie desertion without cause iov a peiiod of two years. He would prove that the husband left tho wife, that tho wifo was willing to come to her husband, and that tho separation wae not by her conbent. The husband hnd been unwilling" iind warned her not to come to him and consequently changed his absence into desertion. — Air Alexander said ho \v:>» quite prepared to rest his case upon tho evidence in the commission. — The evidence ot Helen Kelly, petitioner, taken in tho Supiemc Comfc oi l'klinhuigh, iSeotland, on September 6th, 1087, was then rend. It wiib deposed theiein th;ib the petitioner whs 43 years ot a no, that she was man ied to the respondent on tho 24th, July 1373. At that time iT-pondont was a widower with lour children. Theie was one child. Agnes, the re-nlt ot the marriage, and she had aluti/ys resided w ith tho petitionoi. iler husband was lor ii\e or six months in NVw Zealand and -ho remained at l<\i!!eilon in South Austialia. The,> had not been li\in«j,' happily together and m lei. teis wiitten l>y ttie !e«pondent he staled "that they ccmld evidently not li\e happily together and ad\i"sed her to go home to hei fneuds. ' In othei lettei.s by the le.spondent he directed her to go to her aunt in Scotland, and that he would allow her .1/75 u year.--This being the case ior the petitioner and Mr \le\andcr having accepted the-* c\i deuce as read, Mr Cooper .submitted that liis clietH' wa& entitled to a decree, un the giound than theie was no separation by mutual consent. He went on to quote lrom lettets wiitten by tho respondent with the object ot showing that the dominant feeling in the husband* mind \v,h, that whatever happened, nothing would peisuade him to ieeei\e Ins wile. Mr Coopci submitted that thot-o Ictlei.s showed a dcicimmution on the past ot the i«i-pond(jnt that, he would no\er allow his wile to eomo to him. — In leply to lii-> Honoi, Mr Cooper buid that ho tontended tho deseition commenced m July, 1876, when the lespondent wrote that he could not allow his wife to lcluin to hiu), and told her to jjet a way bacL to her friends in Scotland. He submitted that a wife was- entitled to something moie than mcie .suppoit. The second braiv h of his motion was that the petitioner should ha\o the custody of her cnild. He submitted that a man who could write such letter* as had been wiitten by the respondent was not the pioper prison to ha\e the custody of a child. — Air Alexander f>aid he quite admitted that the letter of 3 uly 1876 showed tho determination of Mr Kell)' tlsat connubial relations should no lonpvr e\i?t between himself and his wife. He submitted, howevei, that although the v/iie protested for some time she e\cntuallv pinctically agreed to a mutual separation by going home. There was no evidence to show that the troinjn home was necessary to the wife's existence. He submitted tluiL there W!\"-! nft t Mflcnce to show that she was dissatisfied with the separation, and quotod fiom \aiious letters in w hich Mis Kelly rclxc an account of what she was doing, but containing no w oids of .separation. It was only when the demand was made for the child that Mr.-> Kelly turned round and said she would have a judicial sepniation. After quoting various lej^al authorities, Mr Alexander submitted that his fiientl had tailed to prove that this separation had a pin tide ot evidence of dcsei tion. lie questioned whethei the Court had pow erto refuse the lespondent custody of the child in question. — Ilisllonor said he had no doubt inthis ca.^e. He A\as <|uite clear that the case must be dismissed, but as the points jaised weie of considerable importance, he would give a wiitten adjournment.