DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1502, 6 May 1886, Page 3

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.

(From the Otago Daily Time*) EDWARD WAKEFIELD (PETITIONER) V. AONES MILDRED WAKEFIELD (RESPONDENT) AND EDWARD WITHERS (CO RESPONDENT). An action for dissolution of marriage on the ground of the respondent’s adultery with the co-respondent Edward Withers. Mr F. B. Chapman appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Q-oorge Cook for the respondent. The co-respondent was not present, and was not represented by counsel, though he had been represented at the preliminary proceedings. Mr Chapman opened with a statement of the esse, the facts of which were briefly ns follows:—The petitioner was married to the respondent in July 1874, and there were issue of the marriage. The parties lived happily together until quite recently, no serions difference of any sort having occurred between them. In May last the petitioner entered into a business in Wellington which rendered it necessary that he should reside there for long periods, and it was arranged that his wife should remain at their home at Timaru with the children, a lady residing with her for a companion, and the petitioner coming home as often as he could until the whole family should remove to Wellington. The petitioner visited Timaru from time to time, staying at his house for periods varying from a week to two months, and all went happily. It was finally arranged that there shoul I bo a family ga'.hering at the house at. I’imiru at Christmas, and that soon af erwards the petilionei’s family should move lo Wellington. Du ing the month of D member the respondent’s lette-s became short and constrained, and she comp’ainet bitterly of having to go lo Wellington j and when t'.e family met at Ohiist mas her matin t cuts‘l great uneasiness. In oo S;-qu since of h-r opposi’ion to the proposed change of r<M : - dence, the peli ion«r lo>k only a fumishnl house in Welhng'on for long enough to tide over the lesion, » member of hie f nnily agreeing to keep his home at Timaru during that term. The pet it ion-r retime 1 to Wellington on tlu understanding that the respondent wou'd follow with the chi'dron n a fortnight or three week*. Yhe respondent, delayed going to Wellington un it Hie beginning of March, and on arriving at Wc'lington she still complained bitterly of the change, and showed no disposition lo dtle down happily. Her mannev caused the petitioner great diitresr and alarm, but he was unable to get any exp'anation of it, or te obtain her confidence. Weeks peeied m

total silence; but. at le e'h the petitioner being compelled tu come to Dunedin eg the defendant in a lawsuit, and fearing to leave bis wife in the despondent state of mind she was in, implore I tier to relieve l '» anxiety and make it. possible for the estrangement t.o be removed. At first the n.s ondent would say nothing, except she w s unhappy at Wellington ; but subsequently she t-dd the petitioner that she had been unfaithful to him at Timaru in December, and there formed anpntinnoy with the co-respondent, making a full confession to the petitioner. Mr Wakefieldjleft the house and telegraohed to his wife’s father, and to him his wife repeated in the presence of the petitioner the admission she had previously made. The petitioner still hoped it was an illusmn, or that some favorable circumstances would come to light, and it was arranged that the respondent's father should go to Timaru and make inquiries while the petitioner came to Dunedin to attend a lawsuit there. Subsequently the respondent's father eama on to Dunedin and communicated to the petitioner the result of his inquiries. The co-respondent first, denied but subsequently admitted the adultery. The petitioner than commenced the present proceedings, finding it impossible either to renew domestic relations with his wife or to keep the matter secret. The evidence of Mr Wakefield, Mr Henry McKenzie (general manager of the Colonial Bank) and the respondent’s father (taken by commission in Christchurch) proved the above allegations, and a docro nisi was granted, the peitioner to have the custody of the five children, and the eo-rrspondent to pay costs.