DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL COURT.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 122, 22 November 1881, Page 3

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL COURT.

-♦ Ykstebday. [ Before their Honours Sir James Prondergast (Chief Justice), Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Gillies.] WHITB T. "WHITE CvTKLLINSTON) This was a case for hearing. ; Samuel James V\ hite, the petitioner, who is a joiner and carpenter by trade, stated that lie married the respondent (n£e Sarah Alice Milstead) at St. James' Parish Chnroh, Olerkenwell, London, in February, 1876. They left England for New Zealand in 1877, and reached here in March of , tie following year. There were issue of the marriage teveral children. Just before Christmas, 1878, the respondent left hint. She had been guilty of adultery with a man , named M'Ewan, employed on board a steamer. Some months ago she left Weilington, and had been living at Manaia with :a wealthy Maori named Wakainaru. Decree nisi. MILLICHAMP V. MILLICHAMP (WELLINGTON). This was a petition on the part of the wife Fanny Milliohamp for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's bigamy and adultery. Mr. W. T. L. Travers appeared for the petitioner (nic Taplin), who stated that she married John Milliohamp at Christchurch in June, 1871. He treated her so cruelly, howaver, that she was compelled to lire apart from him. In 1876 he contracted a marriage with one Eliza Emma Thorpe. He was accordingly prosecuted at Timaru for bigamy, and received a sentence of six months' imprisonment. The petitioner now explained that sho would have taken earlier steps to procure a divorce had she been in a position to do so. Mr. A. Hirtzpl corroborated her evidenoe o as to the cruelty to which his sister-in-law had been subjected. Decree nisi. GOLDSTEIN V. GOLDSTEIN (dUNEDIN). Mr. Stout, with him Mr. Macdonald, appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Denniston for the respondent. The petitioner in a jeweller, residing at Dnnedin, and prayed for a divorce from his wife on the ground of her adultery with one Charles Frederick Aubrey. The circumstances of the case had been tried before Mr. Justice Johnston and a special jury in . Dnnedin, the jury finding that the respondent had been guilty of adultery as alleged. On her behalf, Mr. Denniston contended that the petitioner's oruelty had conduced directly to the act of adultery. The learned counsel had not concluded arguing thiß when the Court adjourned till this morning. This Day. hedley t. hedley and akotheb. A decree absolute was granted in this case, bnt the question of coats was left to be decided afterwards. HOENBY V. HORNBY AND ANOTHEB (dTJNedin). Mr. M'Donald applied for a decree nisi in this case, which was granted. GOLDSTEIN V. GOLDSTEIN (DTJNEDIN). Mr. Stout for petitioner, and Mr. Denniston for respondent. The application for a rulo nisi was, after argument, granted. _ This concluded the business of the Court.