A COUPLE OF DIVORCE CASES.

Grey River Argus, Volume 57, Issue 10520, 10 June 1902, Page 4

A COUPLE OF DIVORCE CASES.

[per press association.] IxvERCAKC-iiLL, June 8. In tho divorce case Marjory M Sutherland v Robert Sutherland, wife s petition on the ground of adultery. Justice Denniston refused to grant a decree. The parties were married a week be r ore last Christmas, •petitioner being fifteen, to hide her supposed shame. Respondent is a coach-driver to Waikaia, and had not provided a home nor maintenance. It turned out that she was not enceiente. Kis Honor said that as the law stood the Court could not be used as a convenience in coses like this. The man who had been employed bo watch respondent gave evidence that immediately he Reached Waikaia he saw Sutherland commit adultery. His Honor : Do you think I am going to grant a divorce on evidence like that. The girl had married solely to avoid suppose-! disgrace, the man to save bhe cosfco? keeping the child, and now wanted to use the* machinery of the Court to get a divorce If adultery was committed at all it was probably to make evidence for this case. The machinery of the Court is used enough for this purpose, but' this is going too far. Th > case is dismissed. On the question of costs in the Kempton divorce case His Honor refused Borne, the co-respondent, his costs as against petitioner, although counsel withdrew him from the case. His Honor said that Borne had taken the principal part in what appeared to be a conspiracy to coerce a young man into a» extraordinary inauiagc. His conduct was extremely discreditable and barely failed of there being suffici nt evidence of adultery to go to a jury. As reg>r.Jed the woman, His Honor said that it was clear she and. co-respondent were combining, not to 'prevent divorce but to protect, co l the interest" of co . relpSnSent, and o:ily one day's costs would bs allowed respondent, who ' v got L23 aud disbursements.