DIVORCE COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXII, Issue 58, 5 September 1901, Page 5

DIVORCE COURT.

« _ YESTERDAY'S • SITTING. (Before his Honour the Chief Justice.), SPELLMAN v. SPELLMAN. This was a petition by Jane Matilda Bpellman for dissolution of her marriage to John Spellman, of Rongotea,* on grounds of and habitual drunkenness. Dr. Findlay, who appeared for respondent, said that after consideration ho had advised his client not to defend the action. Mr. Wilford, for the petitioner, said the case was one of most revolting cruelty, respondent having behaved in a manner unoccountablft in a human being. Formal proof having been given, a decree nisi was granted, with £30 costs ana disbursements. \ FOX v. FOX. The case of Annie Fox v. Francis J. Fox, of Cape Foulwind, partly reported yesterday, occupied the whole of the afternoon sitting. Sarah. Harrington and Margaret Beaumont {sisters of petitioner), Marguerite Beaumont (niece), Annie Reid (confectioner, W«stport), and William Fitzgerald {railway employee) gave evidence in corroboration of petitioner's allegations concerning her husband's drunkenness and cruelty. For the defence, .Francis George Fox, respondent, said ,his wife's allegations of cruelty were only partly true as regard* the night of the horsewhipping episode. As to the alleged drunkenness, he had never lost a day's work from drink in hie life. He wSs accustomed to " take a gloss," and he gob drunk, perhaps, once a year. He and his wife had lived happily together until the children died. TSim abo changed, became nasty, and appeared to warn} to leave home. It ■was not true that ha was drunk the day their two children died, although he had taken whisky by the doctor's advice aa a precaution against infection. The day. after the funeral he did get drunk, through having fortified himself -with whisky at the doctor's suggestion- On, the night of the alleged beating with the whip he went to bed without his tea, because it was not ready for him. - Ho woke up about Anidnight, and found himself locked in the bedroom. When Mrs. Fox opened the door at his demand he struck her across the shoulders with a .garment, and she flew* at him and took him by the whiskers. Later op; when she left the house and went to his uncle's, he followed and struck her one, blow with a whip -handle, because sho refused to accompany him home. Sha flew, at him again and pulled his whiskers^ On the way home she stooped— as he thought to pick Tip a stone — and he struck herpretty heavily -with, the whiphandle. His wife afterwards left him and came to Wellington, and sho had ; refused to go home again. He admitted two convictions for drunkenness during sixteen years of married life. Cross-examined by Mr. Wilford, the respondent said ho might have punched • his wife hi the face to make her let go his whiskers on tho night of the squabble, but he denied having habitually knocked her about. It was untrue that she "slaved" to help him pay £60 for an illegitimate child, out she forgave him for it, though the child was not his. John Naylor and Margaret Healey, who had stayed at Fox's house for short periods, gave evidence to disprove the allegations of drunkenness ans ill-treat-ment. The case was adjourned for further hearing to-day. « TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. On resuming, Francis Fox, aged 15, ' son of the .petitioner and respondent* gave evidence that he had only seqp. his parents quarrel on one occasion. Hb was positive that his father did nob' come Lome once a week and ill-treat th<f petitioner. His mother had told him since coming to Wellington that she. would live anywhere with his father butt at Cap© Foulwind. Mr. Cooper, for the respondent, ad* mitted that on one occasion hiß clients had ill-treated tha petitioner, bat said the extent of the ill-treatment then was exaggerated by her. (His HonourThere is no doubt that he treated her brutally on that occasion.) Mr. Cooper contended that the case was on* lor judicial separation only. Mr. Wilford, counsel for th» petitioner, applied for leave to amend the petition so as to specify that there had been habitual cruelty. His Honour reserved the point, and also took time to consider the whole case. He asked whether in the event of divorce being refused, any arrangement could be made for judicial separation. Mr. Cooper— l think so. WHITE V. WHITE. John White, brushmoker, for whom Mr. Hindmarsh appeared, applied for a divorce from Harriet White on the ground of adultery. The parties wfcre 1 married in Wellington on 3rd October,

1891, and they had lived togetlior nt I'otone and Wnuytuiui. Evidence *was piven that the respondent had neglected her home, and had admitted aaultery with a man ut Pelono. A docree nisi was" granted. HODGE v. HODGE. Mr. Hindmursh supported an application by Tlios. Hodge for a dissolution of marriage with Mary Hodge on the ground of adultery. Mr. Wilford appeared for the rospondent, who denied the charge,, and counterclaimed for a divorce on the ground of desertion. After the petitioner and several witnesses had beon examined with tho view of showing that the respondent had acted improperly with a man named Ticehurst, the parties camo to a settlement, respondent consenting to a decree, she to havo the custody of hor children and petitioner to pay £30 costs and disbursements. An order was made accordingly. IN CAMERA. Tho cases Pagot v. Puget and Hayes v. Hayes, the wives being the petitioners, were heard in camera, and decrees nisi wore granted. Tho cuso of' Algar und Algar, the husband's petition, wan partly heard in like manner, and adjourned until next Tuesday.