LEGAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 64, 17 March 1898, Page 5

LEGAL.

A case of alleged breach of promise of marriage occupied the Supreme Court, Napier, on Feb. 22. Jessie Robertson sued Reginald Mauriel BoAver for £600 damages. The defendant admitted the promise, but claimed that it was given as the result of misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff. In the Divorce Court, Wellington, on Rosa Wilson obtained a decree nisi on the ground that her husband, James Willoughby Wilson, Avas already married when he married plaintiff. Wilson has disappeared, but it Avas stated in court that he had since been married in Auckland. In the case DoAvsett v. Dowsett, the husband obtained a decree on the ground that liis Avife, tAvo years after the marriage, which took place in ISS6, became a Mormon and wont away Avith her father to Utah, where she married again. A man named Thomas Cassidy, employed in the ihewood yard of Messrs A. B. Wright and Sons., receiving and forAvarding agents, met his death last June through being caught by the end of the shaft of a gas-engine, used for cutting- fireAvood. On Feb. 25 ab the Supreme Court, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly, Lois Jane Cassidy, the Avidow, sought to recover £250 from the employers, as compensation for her husband's death. MiMcGregor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Tole for the defence. The claim Avas brought under the Employers' Liability Act of ISS2. A divorce suit, which it is to be hoped is almost unique in character, came before Mr Justice Conolly at the Supreme Court on March 3, the petitioner and co-respondent being brothers. The petitioner was Henry Blencove Matthews, the respondent Evelyn Matthews, and the co-respond-ent Ernest Crowther Matthews. When the case. Avas called only the petitioner appeared. He was represented by Mr C. J. Parr, avlio in referring to the particularly unfortunate nature of the case, mentioned that the alleged misconduct was said to have extended over a period of ten years. Henry B. ' Matthews, farmer, residing at Kaitaia, deposed he was petitioner in this suit. He married the respondent on the 21st January, 1882. About 1884 his brother, the present co-re-spondent, came to live with them, and was a partner in the farm. They lived in the same house until the sth of September, 1897. He was on affectionate terms with his brother and never quarrelled with his Avife in the true sense of the word. They were very affectionate until about the birth of the third child, on 29th August, 18S8. After that there Avas a growing coldness on her part. Witness .was not quite 21 when he married, and his wife not quite 19. Up to last September he had no suspicion, but having been told certain facts, he at once charged his wife, whereupon, with o-reat emotion, she admitted she had been unfaithful for some years. They had six children, and his wife said the fourth, was not his. As it Avas no longer possible for him to live Avith his wife, witness recommended her to go back to her father. Further evidence Avas given by F. S. H. Matthews and William Brent. Mr Parr moved for a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage. This was granted by His Plonor, together with the right to apply for a decree absolute in three months. __ .-