MOST UNHAPPY.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 December 1922, Page 3

MOST UNHAPPY.

A CLERGYMAN’S MARRIAGE. UNUSUAL FEATURES IN DIVORCE APPLICATION. “USELESS TO GO ON.” A case of unusual interest and presenting certain novel features came before Mr. Justice Salmond in the Divorce Court at Wellington on Monday. The petitioner was Rosetta Ellen Boyle, of Wellington, and respondent Jame® Patterson Boyle, of Hastings, who was described as a farmer, but Liter it was elicited by the judge that he was formerly a Presbyterian clergyman. Mr. E. P. Hay appeared for petitioner. The grounds for the petition was separation by mutual consent. The suit was undefended.

“This was a most unhappy marriage,” said counsel. ‘The parties were -both thoroughly unhappy, and came io an understanding that it was useless to go on.” A CLERGYMAN FARMER. The petitioner, a neatly dressed young woman, who composedly gave her evidence, stated that she married the respondent at Wellington. They afterwards lived at Warkworth in the Auckland district for two years. His Honour: I notice that the marriage certificate describes- him as a clergyman. Is that so? Petitioner admitted that this was the case. His Honour: Had he a church there? Petitioner: Yes. You lived there with him for two years?—Yes. Petitioner went on to say that her husband was called in the ballot in 1917. He appealed, and was exempted, but later went into camp. They broke up their home in Warkworth. The petitioner went to Wellington to her parents, and the respondent to his mother at Hastings. In July of the following year he entered camp, and was there during the epidemic.

His Honour: I do not understand the story at all. He did not cease to be a minister of the Gospel by resigning his charge?

Petitioner said he did not return to the church owing to the separation. She went on to say that she twice visited Hastings and stayed with her husband at his mother’s home. After he left camp they met in Wellington. UNDERSTANDING ARRIVED AT. Conneel: And you came to some understanding? “Yes,” confessed the witness. “We did not understand each other at all, and we agreed to separate.” His Honour: A very curious case. You failed to agree. What did you differ about?

Witness: There was not one thing on which we could agree. His Honour: Very well, go on. In reply to her counsel the petitioner stated that the marriage was never consummated.

His Honour: Never consummated! Not at all? Witness: No, never. Counsel: He has never asked you to go ’back to him?—No. His Honour: You mean to say that he left you without the consummation of this marriage? Petitioner: He is now farming at Hastings.

Counsel: Have you seen him since? —No.

His Honour: Not for four years? Witness: No, I have not seen him. Until recently the respondent had allowed her £1 per week. “They recognised that it is quite impossible for them ever to live together again,” said counsel. His Honour: I must confess that I do not understand this story. Why have you net proceeded for nullity, Mr. Hay?

Counsel replied to the effect that his ■client was naturally very sensitive on the matter.

“You will have to prove some reason,” said the judge. “Two young people decide that they do not like each other. Then they come and ask for a divorce. I cannot grant a divorce on these grounds. What really was the matter? Did he ill-treat you?” •SIMPLY COULD NOT AGREE. Witness: No, he did not. We simply could not agree on any subject. It would be quite' impossible for us to live in the same house together unless I was just his housekeeper. His Honour: You say your marriage was never consummated and that it was not due to any refusal of yours? Witness: That is so.

Evidence was given by a friend of known the petitioner for twenty years. Petitioner had not lived with her husband for some years, said the witness, ■but resided with her mother at Wadestown. Counsel requested that the case' should be adjourned to enable additional evidence to be placed before the court. His Honour declared that he would adjourn the case until Friday. “You understand that I want the case completely proved, Mr. Hay,” said Sir John Salmond, “as in a case for would be required by the court. Mr. Hay: Very good, sir. nullity.” His Honour added that the usual evidence of the medical men LOCALS. —/

“What* is the position in regard to Mangahao?”’ asked Mr. J. W. Effingham of Mr. Temple, the Dannovirko Electric Power Board’s engineer, at

the meeting of the Board. “They st : ll adhere to the view that power will be available by Christmas, 1-923,” replied the engineer. There was one lady interjector who received somewhat of a rude shock at Mr. Sievwright’s meeting ‘ at Wellington. She interrupted the candidate •somewhat raucously, whereupon Mr. Sievwright remarked: “I am pleased to hear you pleasant voice again, lady. I can see you have been following me around. Your presence is very welcome, but my friends are getting anxious. I am a bachelor.”—(Roars of laughter.) Frederick Smith was charged at Wanganui S.M. Court the other day with killing oppossums without having taken with retaining skins for his own use out a license. He was also charged without having paid the royalty of 1/each. Defendant sent a letter pleading guilty. The Magistrate said he supposed the object of the law wa> to prq-

, tcct the Society for introducing the oppossums'. He thought that in some districts they should pay 1/- per head to get rid of the oppossums. Senior Sergeant Lopdell said that the Act gave power to a person to destroy opossums in his own orchard. On the first charge a fine of £2 and costs was impoispd and on the second the fine was assessed at 1/-. At Tauranga last week the inspector of stock proceeded against. E. H. Brindle, of Okauia, near Matamata, on a charge of removing one horse and three dogs from area A without a permit, as required by the Stock Act, 1908, and the regulations for the prevention of the -spread of ticks among cattle. The inspector of stock said that Brindle had made no attempt to get a permit. The magistrate said it was defendant’s duty to make himself acquainted with the regulations, and imposed a fine of £lO, Wilk CQBfaK