REMARKS ON COLLUSION. A sitting of the Divorce Court was held by Mr. Justice Denniston this morning. In the case of Mathew Murdoch, carpenter, v. Matilda Maud Murdoch, Mr, Jellicoe said that owing to tho illness of tho petitioner both side* had consen tod to an adjournment till next sittings. Mr. Woston confirmed this statesman t. His Honour, whilo granting the adjournment, said "consent" was not ull that was nccetuary in such a matter. Tho proper course was to file an affidavit Tho suit Alexander M'Willlam v. Annie G. M'William was next culled on. Mi Jellicoe said the parties had agreed foi tho snko of the family aot to go on. His Honour : Strike the case off the list. In the petition of Emily Louisa DUoj» v. Walter Dixon, dissolution; of tho mar ringo was sought on the grounds of desertion. Mr. Weston, instructed by Mr. Holdswortli, appeared for tho petitioner, but the renpondont, who was formerly a warehouseman in Wellington, but is now at Taihape and is understood to be a remittance man, was not represented. Tho parties were married at the Registrar's office, Christchurch, in 1890, and had pno child, now six years of ago. Thoy lived at Wellington and Brooklyn, but in 1898 respondent sold the house, and his wife had had to go away and keep herself by nursing. She hod written for assistance, but got no answer. They had not lived on good terms, as tho husband drank. A written admission of tho charge of desertion, obtained by petitioner's solicitor, was put in. Hia Honour said these coses in which the ground was desertion wero, of course, necessarily .more open* for collusion than was formerly tho case, as in cases of adultery— which had to be proved before the amending Act was passed — there was a greater stigma attached, which, it must be assumed, would leivd to a party coming forward to deny it if it were not true. Nothing could bo easier where tlte marriage vr M sought to be dissolved by both parties for collusion in regard to the allegation of desertion. For that reason the Judges had always taken great caro to guard against allowing collusion to succeed. A written admission was what would bo volunteered in a case of collusion, but he did not suggest there was anything of that kind in this particular instance Still, 'he thought that whero tho party tfrat made the admission was a competent and compellible witness the Court should, and in future he wonld, decline to admit such an admission as corroborative evidence unless in some exceptional caso. Th.c party should be brought into court to 'test the bona. flu«». As there was no reason to doubt the bona fides in this case he would grant J'ho decree nisi with costs on tho lowest scaJo. Cruelty and adultery were alleged in the cos© of Gertrude Smith r. Sydney Albert Smith, in which Mr. Jelliooe appoared for petitioner. Respondent was not represented. The parties were mar. ried in 1893, lived at Newtown, and had three children. It was alleged that the husband, while drunk, used to thrash Ins wife, and in 1899 he left her, and had since lived with another woman as man and wife. A decree nisi with costs on the lowest scale was granted. Annio Perry sought for a dissolution of her marriage with William B. Perry on the ground of desertion. Tho Perrys wero married in 1894, and had two children, and since 1898 petitioner had boon supporting herself ana Mio children. A letter from the respondent's solicitors wo* put in by Mr. Hindmnrsh, who appoared for Mrs. Perry, stating that there was no defence to offer. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute at tho end of V. roe months, but cniphnsiced tho remarks he !iad made in tho Dixon case.