DIVORCE COURT. This Day.

Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 133, 2 December 1884, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT. This Day.

(Before his Honour Mr. Justice lliohmond.) Au adjourned fitting of the Supromo Court in divoroe and matrimonial causes jurisdiction was held at half-past 10 o'clock this morning. WALLACE V. WAI.LAOS. Mr. Edward Shaw appeared for the petitioner. Mr. E. B. Brovra, for ono of the two corespondents (Nash), Baid ho could not understand how this paso came to be pnt on the list for this sitting, as it was impossible for it to be heard to-day. Mr. Shaw said it had got on to the list inadvertently; it would not be ripe for hearing till January next. In reply to the Court, Mr. Shaw added that Mr. Edwards was retained for the other 00-respondent, Jonnipffs. His Honour onquired if there were any damagos asked in this case. Mr. Brown Baid damages were laid at .£5Ol, which made b ; s cliont so anxious about it. (Laughter.) The ease was then taken off the list, with a view of being called on in January. OBKT T. OBIT. This oase was heard in camera, representatives of the Press not being admitted. This was a petition for nullity of marriage on the part of the wife. Mr. Shaw appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Stafford for the respondent. Medical evidence was adduced in support of the case for the petitioner, the witnesses oxamined being Drs. Henry and Diver. The petitioner was Jane Mary Stanislaus O'Kearne, and the petition set forth that the marriaga took place at St. Mary's. Welling, ton, on Ist Deoomber, 1881. At the time of iho marriage the petitioner was 26, and the respondent (James Gratton Grey) 34; and respondent was then, and had been since, unable to consummate the marriage. The last allegation wm denied by respondent. Eventually the case was adjourned to enable the evidonco of the respondent to be taken on commission in Melbourne. MONKTON T. BIONKTON. This was a petition for dissolution of marriage ou the part of the wife. Mr.'Edward Shaw appeared for the petitioner; there Was no appearance on bohn 1 ? of the respondent. Emma Monkton, the petitioner, deposed — I am the wife of Charles Henry Monkton, photographer, and was married to him in Auckland on 23rd November, 1881. when I was 12 years and two months old. Mrs. Lynch lived with us after marriage. I had been previously living with Mrs. Lynoh, aud Monokton had been cohabiting with her. I was forced into the majfrUge by threats and persuasion. Monokton/and he word turn me rid Mrs. Lynoh (t*v> Bisters) out into the streets if I did not tnvcty him. Mrs, Lynoh aUo persuaded me "I* marry him. (Copy of certificate of marnago produoed.) My sister passed for my /mother at thelmarnage, and my age was stated to be 15 years. My mother was dead at the time, and my father was imbeoile. I did not occupy the same room aa my husband that night. Mrs. Lynoh did. I Witness desoribed in detail har movements for Bpme months after marriage, resulting in her esoaping from her husband.] I deolinod to go baok to my husband because I hated him. He was recently sentenced to a term of imprisonment for making a false declaration under the Marriage Act. Alice Baxter, alia* Lynoh, alms Howoll was next called. She refused to answer whether she was the sister of the petitioner or not. His Honour warned her that sho might be punished for contempt of Court if she declined to answer reasonable questions. The witness said she could not swear b what she did not know. She went on tj say that to the best of her belief petitioner was her sister. Mr. D. C. Cooper was the only other witness examined, and ho gave evidence as to Lynoh and Monokton having been sentenced for making a false declaration. This was the petitioner's oase, and th» matter was then adjourned for argument before his Honour as to the question of legal oruelty.