SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3605, 31 January 1883, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND.

Auckland, Yesterday.

At the civil sitting, before Mr Justice Gillies, the case of Willcoeks v. Willcocks and another was heard. This was a petition filed by T. L. Willcocks for the dissolution of his marriage with Mary Price Willcocks, on the ground of adultery with E. E. Eorder, the co-respondent. Mr Colenian appeared for petitioner, and Mr Theo. Cooper for respondent. A jury having been cmpannelled, Mr Coleman, in opening the case, said that the petitioner sought a dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on account of her adultery, which adultery was denied by the respondent and the co-respondent. Evidence was then token as to cohabitation between the respondent and co-respondent, and the birth of a child by Mrs Willcocks. Mr Cooper said he did not intend to produce evidence or to address the jury. His Honor, in summing up, said that although the repondent and co-respondent had filed denials of the adultery they had not produced evidence to disprove it. The jury, without retiring, gave a verdict for the petitioner. In the case of Snowden v. Snowden and another, Mr Heskcth appeared for the petitioner, and applied that the rule nhl obtained at the previous sitting of the Court be made absolute. His Honor declared the rule absolute.

The case of Lyttlc v. Lyttle was a petition filed by Hannah M. Lyttlc for a divorce from her husband on the ground of his adultry with Mary Jane Willows. Mr Samuel appeared for the petitioner. The

case arose out the recent bigamy case in the Supreme Court. The petitioner proved her marriage Aviththe respondent, not knoAviug at the time that he had a wife living. One child was the offspring of the connection. His Honor granted a rule nisi for the dissolution of the marriage.