SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLIII, Issue 6423, 21 April 1886, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

DIVOBCE AND MATEIMONIAL CASES. TUBB-AT, April 20.

[Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court re-opened at 10.30 a_n. SBK-tNG V 88-I—RO.

The hearing of this case was resumed. Bichard Nicholl and Alexander Dunbar were called for the petitioner. This closed the petilioner's case. Mr Joynt then opened the case for the respondent, and called evidence. Mary Jane Smith deposed that'petitioner came to her house, and stated that Ebeling had driven her about so. The witness then went en to detail several matters connected with the quarreling between the parties, and stated that the respondent usually treated his wife kindly. Mr Weston cross-examined the witness at some length. Dr. Stewart gave evidence as to attending the petitioner in March, 1884. Dr. Preston also deposed to having been retained to attend Mrs Ebeling in her confinement, but she did not send for him. Henry J. Beswick deposed to having acted in June, 1885, as solicitor for Mr Smith in an action, Smith v Ebeling, in the Eesident Magistrate's Court. The petitioner gave evidence in the case, denying, as far as he remembered, all that Mrs Smith had said about her, telling .her that her husband and herself lived unhappily. The general bearing of her evidence was that they lived happily. His Honor put the question to Mr Joynt, how he could, after having struck out the eighth paragraph of the defence, that the respondent was willing to take back the petitioner, resist a judicial separation as the question of alimony came afterwards. Mr Joynt said that judicial separation was the exercise of one of the powers of the Court on facts proved, being a sentence of the Court on the respondent. Ultimately the subject dropped. Thos. W. Stringer deposed to acting as EoUcitor for the respondent vi Court Llow Mrs Smith deposed that Mrs E?__nghad told her that ate was hying «,-_-»-_▼ with her husband, and that he her. Mrs Ebeling denied

meet positively that she had lived unhappily with her husband, or that he had ill-treated her.

Heinrioh Ebeling, the respondent, deposed generally as to the relations between the petitioner and himself, denying that he had treated her unkindly in anyway. He also stated that they had not quarrelled except what was nothing to speak of. The petitioner left him one Sunuay in Ootober, 1885, and went to Mrs Pietersen's. Witness' did not know she was gone, and there was ns dinner cocked, nor was the house cleaned up. He went to Pietersen's for her, but she would not come home, and did not until the following Thursday. The petitioner always got what money she required. Petitioner left him finally on 22ad January, 1886. There had been no quarrel, and he did not know why she had left him. He swore most positively that he had never beaten his wife in his life ; he might have Baid in a passion that he would kill her, but he did not mean it. He had never pat his hand on her throat. The petitioner had a hot temper, and so had witness. The , petitioner was easily put out. At this stage of the proceedings his Honor again called attention to the presence of young women in Court, who had, he said, come in en the chance of hearing something indecent, and ordered them to be removed by force if necessary. j Examination continued—Witness knew that petitioner received letters from Liddle. She read some of them to him.

In cross-examination by Mr Weston, the witness said that he told his wife that he did not like Mr Liddle writing to his wife. He went to Liddle's while hiß wife was staying there, and slept with her. When Liddle came out to witness' house he was afraid of Liddle being about to beat him, and he got out of the house.

The witness was croee-examined at great length as to a number of details.

This closed the case for the respondent.

Mr Joynt addressed hia Honor, submitting that the petitioner had made out no case at all, as she had been contradicted by her own witnesses.

Mr Weston replied, and his Honor gave judgment, pointing out that the petitioner not only came into Court with her evidence contradicted by other witnesses, but with. the probability of adultery having been committed by her. Under these circumstances the Court could not, {in the interests of the community, as well aa the individuals themselves, consider the petitioner aa entitled to the relief she sought. There was some evidence of what might be called legal cruelty, but on the whole the petitioner was not one on whose testimony the Court could rely, and there was also the medical evidence tending very strongly to show that adultery had been committed. The petition for a judicial separation would be dismissed.

The question of costs was deferred till next Chamber sitting. The Court then adjourned to 10.15 a.m. to-day.