Divorce Court.

Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 23, 14 June 1886, Page 2

Divorce Court.

This Day. (Beforo Mr. Justice Richmond and a Jury of twelve.) WRIGHT V. WEIGHT. This was ft petition by Mary Jane Wright for a judicial separation from Henry Charles' Clarke "Wright, manager of the Wellington Meat Preserving Company, oh the ground of his adultery with one Mary Kceley, a married woman. Mr. Jellicoe appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. 801 l for the respondent. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner had committed adultery with one Frank Parkes, and that there was a deed of separation in existence which was a bar to the present proceedings. Mary Ann Biley, wife of Joseph Riley, landlord of the Post Office Hotel, deposed that she and Mts. Wright came over from Melbourne to Dunedin in October last in tho somo boat. Mrs. Wright went on to Wellington, and beforo witness and her hnsband left Dunedin to come up to Wellington they telegraphed to her to secure apartments for, them. Mrs. Wright secured apartments at tho Newtown Hotel, kept by Mr. S. Parkes, and witness and Mr. Biley stayed there a week, after which thoy went on to Napier. Frank Parkes, one of the landlord's sons, was staying in the house at tho timo, Frank Parkes' room was opposite witness's, and Mrs. Wright was next door to witness's.^ Witness never went into Parkes' bedroom, but often into that occupied by Mrs. Wright. She could see into Parkes' room. When Parkes was ill she saw Mrs. Wright coming out of his room once. That was the only occasion she ever saw Mrs. Wright coming out of the young man's bedroom. Mr. Bell intimated that he did not intend to proceed any further with the countercharge of adultery, and was willing- that a verdict should be recorded in the petitioner's favour on that count. By his Honour's direction the jnry brought in a verdict for the petitioner on the ninth count, relating to alleged adultery with Frank Parkes. The jury, who were only empannellcd to try the issue of alleged adultery botween petitioner and Parkes, were then discharged. Mr. Bell applied for an adjournment of tho cose, owing to the absence of Mr. Edwards, solicitor, a material witness, who was in Napier. Mr. Jellicoe objected to on adjournment. Mr. Bell explained that Mr. Edwards was required to give evidence as to connivance by Mrs. Wright with acts of adultery committed by her husband. Mr. Jellicoe said he was anxious that the cose should be brought to a cloae. It had now' been hanging up fora considerable time. Mr. Bell urged that the adjournment should be granted. He pointed out that the evidence which Mr. Edwards was prepared to give was most essential to the respondent's case. . Mr. Jollicoe argued that the other side should have arranged for Mr. Edwards' attendance. Mr. Bell said he should like an adjournment for 14 days. He explained that Mr. Edwards had gone to Napier to take proceedings against a firm of solicitors there. Mr. Jellicoe said he was anxious that the case should be settled at once, because the respondent had threatened to clear out if the cose was persisted in. His Honour adjourned the case until to-morrow for the purpose of enabling Mr. Bell 'to file an affidavit as to the evidence Mr. Edwards could give, and Mr. Jellicoe another relative to the alleged threat of respondent to clear out if the case was persistedin.