A DUNEDIN DIVORCE

Evening Star, Issue 14495, 21 February 1911, Page 5

A DUNEDIN DIVORCE

THE WIFE’S SECOND EXPERIENCE IN THE COURT. ThU morning, there being no Chamber! work, the only business brought before Mr Justice Williams was a divorce suit. James Pine, of Dunedin, carter, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Bridget Mary Pine. . . • Mr Irwin, counsel for the petitioner, laid that the parties were married at South Dunedin on the 23rd September. 1908. The respondent was then a divorced woman. She was petitioner in a suit which was brought in 1908, and a week after the decree absolute she married Pine. There were no children. His Honor: Is that allowed, that there should have been a second marriage a week after the decree absolute? Mr Irwin: There was an interval of three months after the decree nisi. His Honor perused the statute, and said it was all right. Mr Irwin, continuing, said that the parties resided together at Dunedin, then at Wellington, then again at Dunedin. The wife was very much addicted to drink, and tho husband moved to Wellington for the purpose of trying to straighten her up. He had to sell nis belongings here, and sell again on leaving Wellington. He could do nothing with her. Eventually she was arrested and sentenced in December last. Pino then ascertained that she was in the habit of going out at night in his absence at work, and that she then prowled tho streets and was known to tho polico as a bad woman.

Petitioner, in the course of his evidence, said that Mrs Pine used to drink a lot, and after l!u> first six months they were not happy together. He had to go to the stables at eight o’clock of a night to feed his horses, and when he returned she was always gone. In December last she got into trouble for drunkenness, obscene language, and reacting the police, and was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. He made inquiries as to her conduct, as he had Ids suspicions, but ho could not find out anything at the time. Constable Butler deposed that ho did special duty in making inquiries, especially of an evening. He knew Airs Pino very well. In August last she and other women who frequented tho hack and ill-lighted streets of a night come specially under his notice, and he had seen her in company with a woman who had been convicted of leading an immoral life. He frequently saw respondent accosting men. This sort of thing went on from August to December. The police would have preferred a charge of vagrancy against her, only they knew that she had a husband, and in most of such cases the husbands came forward and gave evidence that they supported tho wives. He was certain she was out for unlawful purposes. Constable Edwards gave similar evidence, and added that he hod told the respondent that if she did not keep off the back streets she would get into trouble. Mr Irwin said that was tho case. His Honor: lam not quite sure. It is a case for strong suspicion, almost amounting to a certainty. Have you traced her going with any particular person? Mr Irwin said that he could not take the case any further with regard to what was known during tiro period specified; but he would submit that where a criminal intention existed and ample opportunities iffered, the Court would assume the offence cad been committed. That was laid down in Davidson v. Davidson (2 Jurist Reports, N.S., 547). His Honor: That is long before tho Divorce Act. Mr Irwin: But the proof would bo the same. There is this, however, if your Honor wants more evidence t that since the issue of the petition tho petitioner has completely satisfied himself of specific guilt. His Honor; 'That would be evidence, throwing light on what is already before the Court. Petitioner, recalled, gave particulars of his visit at six o’clock one morning to No. 795 King street, where he found convincing pronf of his wife’s misconduct with Samuel Xo.they. lie (Pine) assaulted Northey on tin; spot: Constable Butler added that Northey was a convicted - thief and vagrant. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to ceconie absolute after three months.