SUPREMEME COURT.

Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 3896, 17 January 1878, Page 2

SUPREMEME COURT.

SITTINGS UNDER DIVORCE ABD MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT,

Wbdnbssat, Januabt 16. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.} HBHBT T. HBNBT. This was a petition by David Heney, of Beach road, KaXpoi, for a divorce on tho gound of the adultery of his wife, :li_n« eney, with one William Moore, of Kaiajsa, farm laborer. He also sought to recover £509 damages, for which, however, he did —efe Mr Joynt appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of either respondent or co-respondent. It had been, on » former occasion, arranged that hia Hones should hear the facta without a jury. After opening the case for the petitioner, Mr Joynt called the Rev. C. Fraser, who deposed to marrying David Heney and Liuze Burridge, at Oliristch-fch, on 13th Septara* ber, 1871. Thomas Stevenson deposed to being pM— sent at the marriage. David Heney said he was the petitioner in the case, was married at the date named, and lived with hia wife till March 18th, 1877, when she left him. There were three children by the marriageu. His age was forty when he married, and nil wife's age seventeen years. He had beea previously married, and had nine children,, some of whom lived in the houseHe had four grown-up sous, from eighteen to twenty-three years of age. The co-respondent in the case, William Moore, was his nephew, and had lived in hiahouse as a servant. Witness then detailed at length the conduct of hia wife and nephewr on various occasions, and proved that they had been guilty of adultery. His wife acknowledged to him that she was guilty, and begged forgiveness. In the course of bis examination witness admitted that he lived with hie wife for a fortnight after he waa convinced, of be? guilt, but his object in doing so was to obtain, incontrovertible proof before taking acOtm for a divorce! His Honor remarked that such conduct wae condonation. Mr Joynt said that the petitioner had a motive—the procuring of incontrovertible proof—and expressed a doubt whether, under the circumetanoes, the petitioner's conduct could be considered as condoning the offence. His Honor said the matter would, have to be decided in the Court above. Other corroborative evidence having, beea called, His Honor Btated that he would report t» the full Court, probably in May. The Court then rose.