DIVORCE CASE.-NEILL v. NEILL.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3773, 18 August 1883, Page 4

DIVORCE CASE.-NEILL v. NEILL.

[by telegraph.] AVellington, This day. In tho Divorce Court yesterday the case of Neill v. Neill Avas disposed of. It Avas a suit instituted by Maria Neill for tho dissolution of her marriage Avith Geo. James Neill on the ground of cruelty aud adultery. There was no appearance of respondent, nor avus he represented by counsel. W. A. AVatcr.s, law cleric, deposed that he had served a copy of the citation on the respondent, avlio stated ho did not illtend to oppose the petition. Maria Neill, tho petitioner, deposed that she Avas tho Avifc of Captain Geo. Neill, to whom sho was married at Napier on the 10th of -larch, 1804, by Bishop Abraham. Her maiden name Avas Monteith. The respondent at the time of her union Avas an officer in tho Commissariat Department, and remained in the force for eight years at the expiration of Avhich period ho retired on half-pay. His pay was increased on account of his having children dependent upon him. AVitness and her husband loft Napier on the day on wliich they were married, and came down to AVellington, where lie continually ill used her. In conscqueiioe of his violence sho had been obliged to take refuge in neighboring houses. The first child Avas born ten months after marriage. It Avas a girl, and only lived a couple of months. Tho second child was born in England, Avhithcr her husband had been ordered from Mauritius. On the way Home ho behaved avoi-so than over to her, ancl on reaching England his conduct Avas so bad that his brother officers expostulated with him on his treatment. In consequence of what her medical advisor told her she ran HAvay from her husband, and after residing iv London for some time returned to AVellington. The respondent came out about tho"same time, and at the request of her brother she resumed cohabitation Avith him. His conduct again became very bad, and almost daily she received thrashings from him. In consequence of his ill-treatment her brother took her aAvay from the house, and respondent promised to contribute towards the support of her children. This he had failed to clo. For two years after she left respondent she resided in AVellington. Sho aftei'Avards spent eight years iii_<apier, and then returned to this city. Since her husband loft her she hacl maintained herself and children by tuition. On some occasions her husband ill-treated her so badly that her body bore several bruises. Several years ago she had consulted Mr Gordon 'Allan ancl another barrister at Napier m regard to a divorce, but it ay.is only of late years that her means had been adequate to the expense of a suit for dissolution of marriage. On more than one occasion her husband had stated thathchad been intimate with other Avoinen. Ho volunteered these statements in order to annoy Avituess. He was frequently out nearly sill night. On more than one occasion maid servants had appealed to her for protection, as her husband Avas in the habit of taking liberties with them. The Avitncss then proceeded to give further detailed evidence as to the respondent's infidelity. His Honor hold that tho charges of crueltcry and adultery had been established, and pronounced a decree nisi.