IN DIVORCE.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11279, 21 May 1902, Page 5

IN DIVORCE.

ROSEWARNE v ROSEWARNE. This was a petition by.Richard Rosewarne for tbe dissolution of his marriage with Jane Ro-ewarne, his wife, on the ground of adultexy with the co-respondent, Hany Brown, of Wellington.. ■ Mr Hunt appeared for the- petitioner. The respondent and co-hespondent were not represented. - The parties were married in 1894, and lived together for four years happily. The wife then began to f_equent racecourses and neglect her* home. Subsequently in 1898 she left her husband altogether, and he took tbe'child of the marriage, paying 10s per week for it. The petitioner found that his wife was living in adultery in Wellington, and he" took the present proceedings. In reply to his Honour, tbe petitioner said that the reason why his wife had left him was that she went to the races, and was away three days. On his remonstrating with her,' she went off. , Two witnesses who knew Mrs Rosewarne .deposed. to .calling on her in Wellington, where she was living with one Harry Brown, of as his wife. His Honour ______ the' decree nisi, with leave. to apply to make it absolute within three, months. .'.■... VAILE v VAILE. This' was a petition by Elizabeth Lucy "v-ule.fo- dissolution of her marriage with Nathaniel Charles Vaile, commercial traveller, on. _b_.;_.round that tlie respondent had deserted his wife without reasonable cause for.some five years. ■ . ' '.Mr ? Fle_h__ appeared for the petitioner, the _es,pondent'w_s not represented by counsel. The parties were married on March" 3th, .1896, when the petitioner was 18 years pf age, and'the respandent 21. They separated there and then, the respondent going to his family and the petitioner stayed with heir parents that day, afterwards going to a maternity, home, where her child was born thiee months afterwards. Her father paid for the support of the child, and her husband promised to pay something, but did not do so. In July the petitioner left tbe home and -went to her husband's parents' house, where she remained, her child having been adopted. The petitioner and her husband never lived together as man and wife at any time. The parents of tbe petitioner arranged that she should ba his wife only in name. Her husband took her wedding ring off her finger •whilst his brother held her. She also lost her marriage certificate out of her box, and b. told her she would never see the ring or certificate again, her husband telling her that the marriage was illegal. The petitioner went to service, and used to go to the house of her husband's parents, where she saw him, but was never alone with him or walked.out with him. She wrote one letter to him telling him that she had waited long enough for a home, and subsequently saw him:and asked him what he intended to do. He told, her that ha never intended to do anything for her,-and he never contributed j an .-thing towards her suj.port. .His .Honour said he did not. think the Court should be called upon__ after the. lapse of-time, to .bos. a bond which these people ; had been forced into in order to legitimise the child.-It was making a convenience of the Court to-undo what was understood at j the time to be merely a osremony gone ! through as a oeremony only. The Court inu-fc'be satisfied that there was no arrangement, at the time that it should be regarded as no marriage. In this case he was asked. to grant a decree on the unsupported testimony, of the petitioner, and he must bave some further evidence that tbe refusal to cohabit came from the respondent. .The case stood over till 11 a.m. next day i for Mr F.esher to produce further evidence. BLOOD v BLOOD. This .was a petition by the wife for a dissolution of marriage on the ground that her hu-band, the respondent, had been a habitual drunkard for at Least four years before the, commencement of the suit, and also that he had left the petitioner without means of support. The parties, Elizabeth Blood and William Blood, known as Clark, were married in 1890, the petitioner being a k widow, and there was one child. Ever since the ma__iag_ it was alleged that the respondent bad been in a state of drunkenness for weeks at a time and the petitioner had had to go ou J to work, never receiving any money from her husband. Since _he had taken the Coffee Palace her feu-band b§.d frequently importuned her for money to get drink 'with. Mr* Russell appeared for the netrtioner, and the respondent wasf unreprese_rt_d.,r The petitioner, cross-examined by Mr Russet, gave evidence as to the intemperate habit, of the respondent, and also stated that she had taken out prohibition orders against him. These had no effect whatever on his drunkenness. The respondent, a year ago, entered into a deed of separation. Evidence was given as to the intemperance.of the respondent. ___t_r some argument, __i« Honour took

time to consider the point as to tlie effect, of the deed of separation in the allegation that the respondent had failed to support j the petMoner. The Court then rose.