DIVORCE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 144, 20 June 1899, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

The following cases were heard yes-

terday: — Edward Cofiey (petitioner) v. Margaret Coffey (respondent) and Mich tie! O'Connor (co-respondent) .—1 etit£n far decree nisi for dissolution of

}Fr Theo. Cooper appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of respondent or co-respondent.—The petitioner deposed that he mamed his wife in .Tame, 1893, in Auckland, at thei Rlegfistrar's Office. She was then 21 years of age. There had been two children of the marriage, but one was dead. He had pent the surviving' child a boy, to school in Melbourne, but his Wife, who was now living' tli ere had obtained possession of him ■without petitioner's consent. He and his wife lived together till the end of 1897, when the respondent went with his consent on a visit to_ Sydney, where she said she had relatives. She was n.way in Sydney over a month, and witness went across there to look after her, having1 suspicions that all was not right. He hunted all over Sydney, and did not find her, and then went on to Melbourne, where he found her living in the Vine Hotel, South Melbourne, with the co-respondent Michael O'Connor, who had just taken over the hotel. He found they were living* tog-ether as mam and wiis. Petitioner threatened divorce proceeding's, and returned to Auckland. About February, 1898, the respondent came back to ATtefcluT..!, and made an appeal to petitioner, who condemned her fault and took herback to lrve with him. Bub in May of Ihe same yea* when he came home one evening he fonnd she was gone. She left a note behind saying she ma going" to Ballairat to her mother. Petitioner couM not trace her for some months, but found she was not in Ballar&t. In December last he went to Melbourne, and found her in the Perseverance Hotel, Cari'ton. The name over the door was Madge O'Connor. The license apparently was in her name. He saw O'Connor there. The respondent had a baby, which she told petitioner Was O'Connor's child. Petitioner isubsequently interviewed O'Connor, who admitted that it was a blaekgniardly action on Ms part. O'Connor was formerly resident in Auckland; he was a stoker in the gas-works here; he 'was a young1 man of about 26. He was accustomed to visit at petitioner's -house in Auckland, and w-as on friendly terms with petitioner. At that time (prior to 1897) witness had had no reason to suspect his wife of impropriety.—Mr Cooper read a letter from the respondent, dated December, 1898, in which' the respondent said she could not now expect Mr Coffey to take her back, and suggested that he Should take divorce; proceedings.—Cbas. A. Naden gave; evidence in support of the petition.. A decree nisi was granted.

Decrees Absolute —His Honor granted decrees absolute for dissolution of marriage in the following cases: — Susannah Bryan (petitioner) v. Hugli Bryan (respondent), and Mabel G. Williams v. Frank H. Williams (respondent). In the former case Mr Cooper appeared for the petitioner, and in the second Mr Palmer made the application.