SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16851, 3 June 1920, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

IX BANKRUPTCY. . (Bc.cre his Honour Mr Justicc Herdman.) John Lancelot Menzies (Mr H. S. J. Goodman), formerly trading, in partnership with Harold Gordon Lune, as the Electric Installation Company, who was adjudicated a. bankrupt on September 10th, 1915, was granted an immediate order of discharge. William Caleb Smith, electrician (Mr Lucas), who was adjudicated :i bankrupt on July 28th, 1017, was granted an immediate order cf discharge. The Court, ■ in its bankruptcy iurisdiction, adjourned till the 1-lth inst., at" 10.30 sum. En DIVORCE. % A WESTPORT PETITION. Albert William Rcnry Morris (Mr P. J., O'Kegun, Wellington). petitioned ior a dissolution o£ his marriage with Maud Elisabeth Morris, on the grounds of adultery. ■Daniel Patrick Mahoney (Mr P. W. Johnston), was joined as co-respondent. The respondent was not represented by counsel. Petitioner and respondent were "originally residents of Westport. The petition was heard before his Honour and a jury of twelve, Mr H. Vv. Heulop being foreman. Tho petitioner was a currier, residing at Westport, and co-respondent was a horsetrainer, of Christchurcli. Petitioner and respondent were married in 1903, and there were three children. In April, 1912, they quarreled, and respondent left the house iind refused to return. Ultimately a de« 3 of separation was arranged. Respondent then kept a boarding-house, co-rcspondent being ont; of the Joclgcra. In July, 1913, respondent, left Westport, and it was alleged that ehc left with co-respondent, and thai respondent and cc-rospondrat lived together in Christchurch and "Kaiapoi, and, it was further alleged, had misconducted themselves. Evidenca was given in support of petitioner's ci.se. _ Co-respondent then gave evidence at considerable length, and denied thai he had at any time misconducted himself with respondent. Replying to Mr O'Regan, co-rcspondent stated that he was a model husband and father—cnts of the best! He admitted that on one occasion, with his wife's consent, he look young woman home who was in a certain condition for which he was responsible ; he also admitted that ho was concerned in the Williams' divorce cpse, and that ho w«s at present living in tho Fame house as Mrs Willi ami, who was his son's housekeeper. Co-respondent's eon also gave evidence. Counsel addressed the jury. His Honour, summing up, commented on tho cbsence from the o:u;e for petitioner of t:ny of the evidence characteristic of cases in which adultery is alleged—ro evidence of guilty intimacy, such as evidence of the partite havivg I:een seen kissinir, or- of the man having M« arm round the woman's wai~'. The evidence as to co-respondent's conduct with other women wa« only admissible to enable the jury to determine whether witness was telling the truth; co-re-spondent did not deny the p/.l«vzation sibout ihe young woman, and in the Williams' divorce .proceedings no decrcc was made. Tho isrnen submitted to the jury were:— p) Did the respondent commit pdultcry with the co-respondent; and (2) did the ce-re-spor.dsnt commit adultery with tho respondent? After a retirement of half-an-honr the jurr returned with the answers "Ko" to each issue. Tbi petition was dismissed, (ho co-re-rpondent being allowed costs on the :iigheT scn'e. * On Mr O'Reßa.n's application, hi.' Hono'i*' reserved lesvo for Mr O'Repnn to anp'y for a. new trial, on the ground that a= far as resnordeit wn." concerned the verdict vrp," against the wffi«»ht of evidence. The Cr"i"t adjourned till 10.30 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).