AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 209, 4 September 1893, Page 3

AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

APPLICATION FOR DISSOLUTION

OF MARRIAGE

At the Civil Sittings of the Supremo Court to-day before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly an application for a decree nisi for dissolution of marriago on the ground of adultery was heard. Tho petitioner was Joseph William Bush and the respondent leabel Mary Bush. Mr E. Mahony appeared tor tho petitioner. Respondent did not appear, nor was she represented.

Mr Mahony said that the respondent now lived at Wollington. After marriage the petitioner and respondent co-habited ab Auckland, but there was no issue of tho marriage. The parties ceased to co-habit in May IS9I, and in September 1892, the respondent left tor Wellington, whore sho had been confined of a bastard child.

Joseph Win. Bush, the petitioner in bhe cause, gave evidence. He deposed that he carried on business in Auckland as a .addlor. The respondent was hia wife and they were marriod at St. Matthew's Church on tho 26th of March 1885. Tho certificate of marriage was put in and examination was continued by counsel. They lived together as man and wife in Auckland. At tho time of tho marriage witness was a commercial traveller and was a good deal away from Auckland. The co-habita-tion continued until tho 7th May, 1391. Witness had heard reports as to his wife's misconduct, and on the Bth ot May ho watched his wife, saw hermeetayomi}; man, and go into tho Western Bark, Poneonby, with him. This was about eight o'clock in the evening, and witness had left the houso before his wife, who camo homo about halfpast nine or ten o'clock. When witness' wife came homo he ordered her to leave tho houso, which was situated in Wellingtonstreet, and noar tho Park. Witness' wife knew why ho ordered her to quit tho house. Whon she returned he told her that ho had seen her go into tho Park. Sho made no answer and did not seem to care much. From tho time of this occurrence, ho had ceasod to >.o-habib with his wifo, and on tho 14th of May, some four days afterwards, ho had a deed of separation drawn up, by which it was mutually agreed thab ho should pay her £1 per week so lonjr as sho remained chaste. Witness had regularly paid the £1 per week up till a part of this year, whon ho hoard that sho had an illogitimato child. All payments wero made through Messrs Hill and Mahony. From the Bth of May, 1891, ho had not spoken to his wifo, but ho had scon her onco or twico in the distance. Witness believed that she left Auckland about tho end of last year, and from whab he had since heard, he believed that sho was residing in Wellington. Witness said thab he had always treatod his wife well, and gavo her no cause to misbehave herself. In answer to His Honor witnoss said that ho knew tho man who accompanied his wifo to the Western Park, and ho believed they went thero to commit adultery. Ho did nob tax his wifo with adultery, bat told her that he saw her go into tho Park. Ho did not prevent her from going in the Park, His wife had relations in Auckland to go to on tho ni^ht ho turned hor out of tho houso1" From the Bth of May until the 14th of June he gavo hia wifo no money, and did not take any trouble to find out how she was supporting herself. Sho wenb to livo with her uncle, His wifo had some money whon he turned her out, bub ho could not say how much, and she had novor appliod to him for monoy. Witness had only returnod from travelling on the day previous to turning her out. Mr Mahony thon put in two affidavits of, Alex. S. Paterson, solicitor, of Wollington, in reference to the registration of the birth of tho child. His Honor referred to petitioner's conduct. Ho said thab tho petitioner saw a young man meet his wife and take her into the Park, and took no steps to prevent it, but assumes that she acted immorally. Ho took no action for a divorco, but had a deed of separation drawn up. He thought that cases were objectionable where a man acted as a spy upon his wife and did not interfere. The petitioner could tako the decree nisi, but if ib had been oppoeod, he was very doubtful if he would havo grantod it. A motion for decree absolute ab bhe expiration of three months was granted by His Honor ab tho ..oquesb of Mr Mahony.