Divorce Court.
(Per Press Association.) DTJNEDIN, Dec. 22. In the divorce suit in McCarties v. McCairties, wife's petition, His Honour roiled that the 'hVislaaiwl was not domiciled In New Zealand, amid therefore he 'hold no jurisldictio'n. In Mcliittisfa v. Mcintosh, hiustyanti's petition, it was shown that the parties had resided in Auckland for two years, aaild prior to that in Diulicdin. After liMinig together for several years, aMd having two children, the wife left to consort wrbh Thos Srn-cc-ck. Sihe awd Sfncoc'k went to Donagihy's rope-works, where the husWand wais nijgiht wa(tctoiß«i, amid told him t'hey *ere going to live together. He -asked bhem to say so before ft witness. They replied afflriuajt-ivaly, and next clay the Husband aired wife signed a voluntary separation ordor, whereby she was transferred to CSincock, The Judge saiiid there was no doubt of adultery, but he questioned whether the coniniviaaiice at a siepitratioin agreement was not a War. The case toad better stand tor consideration.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19031223.2.6
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLV, Issue 264, 23 December 1903, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
161Divorce Court. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLV, Issue 264, 23 December 1903, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in