THE COURTS. -TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11606, 17 June 1902, Page 4

THE COURTS. -TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.—DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) PERRIAM V. PERRIAM AND SOLOMON. Petitioner, John William Perriaui, prayed for dissolution of his marriage with Elizabeth Jane Perriam, owing to her adultery with Henry A. Solomon, sharebroker, Cromwell. The facts as set out by Mr J. F. M. Fraser were that the petitioner was married at Cromwell on the 24tii October, 1894, to the respondent, Elizabeth Jane Auchiuvale, a widow. There was no issue of the marriage. The evidence that would be adduced would prove that while the petitioner was absent in Sydney, New South Wales, the respondent and co-respondent, at Cromwell and elsewhere, commiLted adultery. A relative of the respondent (a haifbrotherj and a cousin would prove that respondent and co-respondent were on two occasions found locked in together in I‘errium’s house, and refused to open the door; and on one occasion, when the doors were forced open, they were discovered locked in a bedroom together. A witness from Christchurch would also state that Mrs Perriam and Solomon lived in Christchurch together as man and wife. On the second occasion when respondent and co-respondent were discovered in the house at Cromwell a fracas occurred, and co-respondent was thrashed by respondent’s brother. Evidence in support of the petition was given by John Wiliam Perriam (farmer), George Trevathcn (miner), Frederick Herd (miner), and Mabel M.lligan. Respondent and co-respondent were unrepresented. His Honor said the charges were clearly proved. Perhaps the petitioner acted injudiciously in leaving bis wife in New Zealand when he went to Sydney, as be knew that she was addicted to drink, but be bad taken reasonable precautions and bad left her in the custody of her brother. Decree nisi granted, returnable in three months; costs against co-respondent. AUSTIN V. AUSTIN. This was a wile’s petition on the grounds of desertion and adultery. Mr Solomon, for petitioner, said the parties were married at Port Chalmers on the 27th April, 1832, and lived together at Sawyers Hay for a few months alter marriage. The husband, Henry Austin, treated bis wife very badly, and she bad to leave him and return to the home of her mother at Port Chalmers. Seven months after the marriage, when the wife was residing with her mother,' Austin sold up the home at Sawyers Hay, and had never returned or contributed to the support of his wife. It would bo proved that respondent was at present living in Lyttelton with another woman, by whom ho had a family. Evidence was given by petitioner, Louisa Vivian Austin, William Henry Hoskings (brother of petitioner), and Marion Cameron. His Honor made a decree nisi, returnable in three months. The above cases concluded the sitting, and His Honor intimated that he would sit in chambers at half-past ten on Thursday next. > SUPREME COURT —IN CHAMBERS(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The following motions for probate were granted :—Re Wung Soung, deceased (Mr MacGregor); re Louie Meier, deceased (Mr Allan); re Charles Edward Dench, deceased (Mr Platts); re Elizabeth Hay Bowden (Mr Fraser); re Marion Brown Gibson, deceased (Mr MacGregor). Re Lunatics Act, 1882, and re Henry Angel Foster, a lunatic.—-Motion for remuneration (Mr Sim). —Accordingly. Letters of Administration.—Motion for letters of administration in estate of Adam Gibson, deceased (Mr MacGregor).—Accordingly. Re the Chattels Transfer Act and instrument, J. R. Mackenzie to Susan E. Mackenzie.—Motion for extension of time for filing instrument (Mr Inder). —Accordingly.