DIVORCE COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 76, 26 March 1900, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT.

Satubday, March 24th.—Before Hia Honour Mr. Justice Conolly, METCALF V. METCALF. The husband, who was represented by Mr. Roy, petitioned for a divorce on the ground of desertion. Responj dent did not appear, either personally | or by counsel.

Petitioner, a settler living at Tarata, stated that he was married to respondent, Catherine McCaul, at Cara.iidonogh, Ireland, in February, 1885, and after living with her till September following came to the colony, it being arranged that his wife was to follow when he had made a home. He returned to Ireland in 1890, and after living with his wife for a month she left him owing to a dispute about property, but subsequently came back and returned with him to the colony. There was one child, born in January, 1886. They settled at Tarata, hut respondent only remained for about a month, when she again left him owing to disputes, and with the child went to New Plymouth, he paying for their maintenance. There was some sixteen years difference in their ages. He saw his wife occasionally whilst in New Plymouth and entreated her to return, but she refused. In 1892 he was sued for maintenance, but respondent did not appear. No tidings had been heard of her for the last eight years, although inquiries had been instituted. He had always treated her with kindness, and did not impute any misconduct on her part. Oliver Samuel, solicitor, gave evidence that he was consulted by petitioner in February, 1891, and iiad unsuccessfully tried to persuade the respondent to return to her husband. Petitioner had honestly but vainly tried to get his wife to live with him. His Honour granted a decree nisi, with permission to apply for an absolute decree after three months,