IN DIVORCE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9813, 24 August 1897, Page 6

IN DIVORCE.

TOSSWIUj V TOSSWIM. AND ANOTHKR. Mr Stringer moved for a decree absolute, the custody of the-child and costs. His Honour granted the decree. WILLIS V WILLIS. Mr Joyce applied for a decree absolute, which was granted. TOS3WILL V TOSSWILT. AND ANOTHKR. Mr Douglas applied for a decree absolute, which was granted. PACL V PAUL. Mr Deacon said he made application in Chambers ior the custody of a child, and the question was whether or not the application should be by motion or by petition. The present motion was for a decree absolute. After some argument his Honour allowed the case to stand over until the next Chambers day. HURSK V HURSE. This was a petition on the part of Paulina Hurse for a decree nisi dissolving the marriage wilh her husband James Hurse, on the ground of adultery. Mr Russell appeared' for the petitioner. Tha reaoondent was not represented. The petitioner was married in 1882 to the respondent, and there were two children issue of the marriage. In 1890 the petitioner left her husband on account of his cruelty and adultery. Afterwards a judicial separation was agreed to, and under this the respondent was to have made certain payments, but he did not, and she had to take to dressmaking to support herself and her children. Subsequently she discovered certain letters addressed to her husband by another woman which left no doubt as to adultery having been committed. Mr Russell opened the caae for the petitioner and called evidence. The witnesses examined were the petitioner, who deposed to the facts stated in the petition as to having been kept without food and money, and also as to the cruelty of the respondent; Dr. Clayton, who spoke as to the petitioner consulting him, and that she was suffering from want of food; Mrs A. Walton, Miss Constance Brown, Mrs E. Rutcliffe.

Hi 3 Honour said the evidence disclosed the fact that the respondent had neglected the most primary duties of a husband to a wife, and the decree ni*i would be made.

On the application of Mr Russell costs were granted as against the respondent, and the custody of the children was granted to the petitioner. The Court then rose.