NEW ZEALAND DIVORCE CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1933, 22 August 1889, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND DIVORCE CASE.

V On June 27th, before Mr Justice /Butt, a man named Warnes, bailing ..from Christchurch, New.': Zealand, for the dissolution of his /marriage on the ground of the adultery s „of his wife with a man namad Boby. The circumstances were peculiar, for dt appeared that Boby did not know ajthe respondent was a married woman, and he had married her himself. Mr ' Searle, who appeared for the petitioner, J said his client was a fish merchant. at \ Lowestoft. Some time ago he went to * New Zealand where he became with the respondent. She £ represented herself as a widow with j, one child. He married her At the >Jloman Catholic Church at Christ">church 'New Zealand, on February y 29bh, 1884. At the end of two years J she left him without giving any warning. She wrote him a letter, stating she hated him, and would never live /With him again. She embarked on \Vboard a ship, and he followed her, He tried to induce her to return, but she declined to do so. Upon their arrival in London she managed to give him the slip. (Laughter.) He returned to New Zealand, and on the Bth June

] 1887, she came back to Christchurch. I She expressed great sorrow for what I she had ddne, but refused to give; any account ab* tb where she had been. Subsequently she received some letters and telegrams which she refused to show her husband. A deed of separation was then drawn up, but ! before it was signed she again clisappeared, and, it turned out that she had gone to England, where she was afterwards found to be living with the correspondent, and with whom she ha& committed a bigamous marriage. Mr Boby in May last presented a petition to this Court for nullity of marriage, which was undefended, and he sbtaihed a decree nisi. Mr Robert

George Warnes was called, and in evidence be bore out the opening statement of his counsel. He further added that he had been to Oatend in company with other persons, and that he had seen and identified the re-

| spondent at a house in the Rue I Louise. Mr Henry Selwin Boby said Ihe was a clerk to firm of stockbrokers, and be became acquainted ( with Mrs Warnes. He afterwards j married her at the Registry Office at

I Edmonton. He at that time believed I. her to be a single woman. He married her in the name of Mary Ann SpackI man. After the marriage he lived with her as his wife. That marriage had beea declared void by this Court. He lived with Mrs Warnes about two years. , They separated on account of her bad temper. He did not know she was a married woman when they j separated. He lived with her “ off and on ” until he heard she had been previously married. On the 4th of March he went with Mr Ward to | Ho, 3, Rue Louise, Ostend, and there he saw the >perjßd[n he bad married. Mr Warnes was with them, and he identified her as his wife. The petition and citation were then served. Mr ( Ward, the petitioner’s solicitor, corroborated, the evidence of the previous i‘The marriage of Mr Warnes in How Zealand having been proved, Hia Lordship granted a decree niVi.j