DIVORCE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 143, 19 June 1899, Page 5

DIVORCE COURT.

/Before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly.)

The Civil Sessions of the Supreme Court were occupied to-day with divorces eases.

John Waklron Wright (petitioner) v. Laura Wright (respondent) and George Milne (co-respondent. Petition for decree nisi for.dissolution of marriage.—Mr Jackson Palmer appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the respondent or co-respondent. In this ease petitioner and respondent after their marriage separated, and respondent, although she knew her former lrasband was alive, married again, believing1

that after seven years' separation she could re-marry.

The evidence proved the second marriage and children by the second marriage. Mr Palmer for the petitioner, moved for a. decree nisi, and said the woman had made a mistake believing she could re-marry, and he did not apply for costs. Decree nisi was granted. Mr Palmer then moved for liberty to make the decree absolute after three months, and said he did not now consider it necessary to apply to the Court for a decree absolute since the passing of the new Divorce Act as the practice under the new Act allowed the decree absolute to be issued by the Registrar out of the office, unless opposition thereto were filed. In this case although the procedure was under the old law, still he could take advantage of any new procedure at any time in the stilt under a well-known legal maxim. Mr Palmer therefore asked to shorten the time only as a precautionary measure. Leave was granted accordingly.

Christopher Hearling (petitioner) v. Mary Hearling (respondent) and Henry James Ferry (co-respondent).

This was a petition for decree nisi for dissolution of marriage. Mr Hanna appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of respondent or co-respondent. Evidence was given by the petitioner, Hearling, who stated that he had been a bricklayer's labourer in Auckland, and afterwards worked at lime-burning at Whangarei. He married the respondent in 18S9, and she had five children, of whom three were since dead. Several years ago he had to leave Auckland to go. to YVhangarei for work, leaving1 his wife and children in Auckland. The corespondent was a boarder in the house, and witness left him there when he went to Whanswei. In June, 1895, he visited Auckland, and on returning to Wha.nga.rei he got a four-roomed house ready then for his wife and. family. He wrote to his wife to come and live with him, but she declined. In October he came to town because, she sued him, and saw his wife and the co-respondent to-g-etiier in Abererom hue-street. He next saw them together in December. In June, 1896, he came to Auckland from Whangiarei to fetch the children away. Petitioner said that Perri and his wife had been living together, and were still living together. Mis wife had a child some time ago of whom Ferri was the father. In the. window of the house in which his wife was living, petitioner had seen the card, 'H. H. Ferri, bootmaker.' Petitioner had supported his wife up to August, 1895, and they had been on good terms up to .that time. A cousin of the respondent and his wife were also called and deposed as to respondent's adultery wi/ch. the co-respon-dent.

_His Honor, on Mr Hanna's application, granted a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, also granted leave to apply for decree absolute at the end>of three months, under the same procedure ais in the preceding case. Costs were allowed a.gainst the corespondent on the lowest scale.