A Peculiar Divorce Case.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2858, 27 March 1888, Page 2

A Peculiar Divorce Case.

The following evidence was taken at the Divorce Court, Wellington, yesterday, in the application of

PRY v. FRY. This was a case in which the petitioner, William Fry, applied for a dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Emily Fry, on the grounds of adultery with one, Francis Bilton, Mr Jellicoe appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of either respondent or co-respondent.

William Fry, sworn, said that lie was married to his present wife, who was then a widow aged.26 years, named Emily Goewood, at on the 26tli July, cohabited until the 13th July, 1887. The co • respondent Bilton was a butcher living near them, and witness had to call him on several occasions to assist him in holding his wife whoa she was sick with fits. Presently Bilton fell ill, and witness, in return for his kindness shown, asked him to his house from the Saturday to the Monday. There was nothing to complain of then, Afterwards Bilton visited at the house. Witness subsequently heard that Bilton visited the house in witness' absence. He spoke to his wife about it, when she said she didn't care but would let him come whenever he liked. She did not care about herself, thereby meaning that she did not care about her character suffering from Bilton's visits. On 13th July witness went home .about'6.3o p.m., and found his out at Bilton's. He did not go'folrner, but on her return spoke to her,' and she asked him why he had not gone after her. He replied that she did not want him butßilton. Then she got in one of her tempers and went into a fit. On wining to she insisted on sending for

Billon, and her oldest (laughter went for him. When Bilton arrived, ho (Biltoj) asked what was all this about, assho (witness' wife) was all right when she was up at his plaGO, and ho i',' told witness that he had better tnind * what ho was doing and saying, It ended in both his wife and Bilton ordering him out of his own house, and finally he went because they taunted him with beiug no man if lie did not. Bilton and his wifo were in the- bedroom when he left the house. Only / saw his wife once- after that at her house, when ho went to fetchhis clothes away, but Bilton and his wife were not living together then. On the Ist September last, Bilton removed to Featherston, and on the same day the respondent left her house and went to live with Bilton, The month previous to this witness was called to by his wifo as she was passing her house oa horseback, Ho stopped and she spoke to him. She said he was her husband and there was no good his " acting," because when sho got tired of Bilton she would come back to him. Witness was respondent's third husband, Had known her for some years before marrying her, but never knew anything bad of her, By His Honor: Went oat of the / house when he was ordered to by j|t Bilton and the respondent, because the house was her property, and she said Bilton had as much right there as he had. Would not have knocked his head against the wall if they had told him to. At this juncture, Mr Jellicoe asked for an adjournment of the case until later on in the day to allow witnesses from tho Wairarapa to arrive by the midday train. His Honor, after some discussion, agreed to let the case stand over as desired, but expressed the opinion that as the evidence stood at present connivance was shown in the clearest way and he could not grant the application. If the witnesses were not down when the case was called on again he should deal with the application on the testimony already before him, The case was then postponed, Evening Press,