Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

DIVORCE COURT.

■Wellington, Last Night

At the Divorce Court to-day the case Smith v Smith and Strike was heard Petitioner was a contractor residing in Wanganui, and was married to the respondent, Alice Smith, in January, 1884. The parties reuded in Wanganui for sonae time, when, in consequence of something which took place, petitioner and his wife separated, the latrer coming to Wellington, where she became acquainted with fj, A. Strike, co respondent, an aerated water manufacturer. Strike took her to his residence, and, intimated that he was going to Wanganui to get a divorce for Mrs Smith from her husband. Shortly after Strike lefc Wellington, and Mrs Smith appeared to have joined him at Masterton, and a day or two afterwards there appeared in a Wellington newspaper an advertisement inserted by Strike, to the effect that he had married Alice Dixon, that being respondent’s maiden name. Evidence was called to show that Mrs Smith resided with Strike for some time in the early part of the year, and upon the adultery being discovered, petitioner took proceedings and sought to recover damages. Strike, it appeared, then got respondent out of the house, and she went to another part of the colony at his expense. The only question for the jury to decide was really one of damages. The jury awarded petitioner LSO damages against co-respondent. The jugde granted a decree nisi. Counsel for co respondent obtained leave to move to have the verdict reversed, on the ground of insufficient evidence to prove he was aware respondent was a married woman. The case of Waller v Waller was also heard. This was a wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of the husband’s continued cruelty and adultery. The parties were manied in Wanganui in Oct., 1880. and after four months, Waller commenced iil-nsing his wife to such an extent that she was compelled to leave him. Later on a reconciliation was made, but with no better success, and finally Mrs Waller' left him altogether. Adultery, committed in Wellington, was clearly proved, and his Honor granted a decree nisi.

Wellington, To-day.

la the Divorce Court in the case of Monokton v Monckton, His Honor refused with regret to grant a decree nisi. He considered the case of an unprecedented nature, but the present law gave him no option. Cruelty in the eyes of the law not having been proved he expressed a hope that the case would be the means of amending the Deceased Wife’s Sister Act, which deprived a woman of the remedy in such a case as the present. Dunedin, Last Night.

In the Divorce Court to-day, Judge Williams granted the petition for judicial separation by Catherine Hagan against Robert Hagan, of Waibouaiti, on the ground of cruelty. The alimony allowed to petitioner was 15s per week. The parties had been married in 1869, and the ill-treatment began eight ye<ua ago.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18850418.2.9

Bibliographic details

DIVORCE COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1517, 18 April 1885

Word Count
483

DIVORCE COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1517, 18 April 1885

Working