IN DIVORCE.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9125, 8 June 1895, Page 9

IN DIVORCE.

Hid Honour eat in divorce. SOLOMON (PETITIONER) V SOLOMON (RESPONDENT) AND ANOrHES. This was a petition for the dissolution of the marriage on Ihe part of the husband On the ground of adultery. The parties were married in Melbourne in December, 1872, and lived together there and in Dunedin up to two years ago. There were eight children of the marriage, five of whom are etill alive and in the custody of the petitioner. A deed of separation was drawn up some two ago and the respondent left Duuedin for Christchuroh, the allowance being punctually paid by the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner ascertained that the respondent and co-respondent were living together in Chrietchurch as man and wife. On this being ascertained the present proceedings were instituted. Mr S. Solomon, of Dunedin, for the petitioner ; the respondent and co-respondent did not appear. Mr Solomon stated the facts he intended to prove, and called evidence. The witnesses called were the petitioner, Messrs Q. I. Merrie, Wm. Forster, C. H. Paiker and Murgaret Merrie. His Honour raised the point whether tbe remiaeiou of the case to him meant that more should be done here than the trial of the facts. Was it competent for the Court here to make the decree nisi ?

Mr Solomon submitted that under the rule giving power to the Judge to fix time and place it was competent for a Judge to order the case to be remitted for trial to Chrietchurch. He cited the casa of Connor v McKay as in point. Hia Honour said he had no objection to trying the case, bub he wanted to be sure that he had jurisdiction to grant the order nisi as aaked for. After some further argument, His Honour said that the parties could take the decree at their own risk—though he did not say that there was any. He would make the decree nisi. Mr Solomon applied for leave to apply to make the decree absolute within three months and costs against the co-respondent. His Honour made the order as prayed.