Divorce Court.

Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 24, 15 June 1886, Page 2

Divorce Court.

-* This Day. ■ (Bofore Mr. Jnstioe Bichmond.) PARDON FARDON. This was a snit by John Fardon, a waggon builder at tlie Potone Eailway Workshops, for a dissolution of his marriage with Josephine Fardon, at present residing at Waitara, on.the ground of her adultery with Henry Fletcher, a railway guard, at Foxton. Mr. Fitzherbert appeared for the petioner and Mr. Gully for thg too-respondent, who did not attend. Mr. Fitzherbort applied for an adjournment of the case, stating that some of "the witnesses, who resided in Wanganui, could not come ddwn in time for the sitting of the Court to-day. Mr. Gully said he was instructed to get the case off as early as possible, and he therefore objected to an adjournment. Mr. Fitzherbert suggested that the evidence of an old lady in Wanganui should be taken on affidavit. His Honour remarked that he was not disposed to take evidence as to a charge of adultery on affidavit. Mr. Gaily, in reply to. his Honour, said he would not object to an adjournment on terms. His Honour thought the case should have been tried in Wanganui, seeing that the witnesses lived there. Tho ease was adjonrned until Thursday, Ist proximo, the potitioner to pay the costs of the co-respondent. The costs were fixed at £5 os. WEIGHT V. WEIGHT. This case was again called on. Mr. Bell, for the respondent, said he did not think the case had been carried any further by the adjournment from yesterday. An affidavit had been filed by him to the effect that Mr. Edwands, solicitor^ was a .material witness, and could not leave Napier to give evidence because he was engaged in a very peculiar case about to be heard in that town. His Honour agreed that the case referred to was not an ordinary one, and that Mr. Edwards could not run away from it. Mr. Jollicoe, for the petitioner (Mrs. Wright), pointed out that Mr. ' Edwards could have made an affidavit at Napier. Ho (Mr. Jollicoe) had filed an affidavit as well as Mr. Bell The affidavit /which ho ho had filed showed that Mr. Wright had threatened to clear out if the suit was perBisted in, and alleged other matters. 'Mr. Bell asked now long Mr. Jellicoe required an adjournment so as to permit Mr. Edwards to attend to give evidence. Mr. Bell said he thought a fortnight would not be too lobfr. Ho believed that the case in which Mr. Edwards was engaged had not yet been called on at Napier. Mr. Jellicoe said that if there was to be an adjournment, it should be on terms. His Honour asked Mr. Bell whether he was prepared to offer terms. Mr. Bell said he was not. Mr. Edwards was tho solicitor originally instruoted, and he (Mr. Boll) h&d no power to come to any arrangement as to terms. ' * v His Honour pointed out that the wife'B costs had not been paid. Mr. Jollicoe raid he thought about £35 would be a 'sufficient indemnity. His Honour intimated that he would grant an adjournment on condition that the husband gave an indemnity for the amount mention by Mr. Jellicoe. Mr. Bell said he did not know that the respondent could find £35, and if he was unable to do so, he (Mr. Bell) presumed the Court would insist on the case being proceeded with in the absence of Mr. Edwards. Has Honour remarked that if he did bo he would- allow Mrs. Wright to be called, so that Mr. Bell oould examine her. f J 1 Eventually the case was adjourned until the 24& instant, on the understanding that Mr. Bell should find security for the'payment of £35 aa wife's costs, and also underj»ke .that the' ohild in the father's possession should not be removed from.' Wellington. Good torßabiks. — " We are pleased to say that our baby -was permanently ouredof .. a serious i protracted irregnlarinr of ' ttm bowels by the nseof American Co.'s Hop Bitters by its mother, which at the same time restored her to perfect health and strength."— The Parent^. See,