SUPREME COURT— DIVORCE JURISDICTION.
Friday, December 3. \ . (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) j His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m. ] EAGLETON y. EAGI,ETON AND SAEFFEIt. ] Mr Moore for the petitioner ; Mr Dick ] for the co-respondent. ] This was a suit for dissolution of s marriage between the petitioner, Albert i Eagleton and his wife Frances Mitchell 1 Eagleton. No damages against the co- f respondent were prayed. The particulars I set forth that the petitioner was married ( to the respondent at Auckland on the i 21st of November, ISB4, and that the 'j parties lived together for a short time. 1 The respondent subsequently left the peti- 'J turner, making certain statements to him s which led him to give her his permission to J go from Auckland to Napier. She did c not rejoin petitioner, who sometime after- c wards learned -that she was living with li the co-respondent as his wife at Napier. '\ Albert Eagleton, hairdresser, deposed I that in 1884 he was living in Auckland. On the 21st of November of that year he l was .married there to one Frances <J Mffcl'iell Greening. She lived with him t till the 18th of the following December, d 1 A'day or two prior to that time she said s she must visit Napier, as she had a S brother lying there dangerously ill of I fever. She also showed witness a letter, c signed " Mrs Dunbar," stating that her p brother was worse, and later showed a 2 telegram of a still more urgent nature. i She said she would like to go to Napier b to see her brother, and witness gave 3 permission for her to go. She went t away by steamer, witness thinking S that she was going to see lier brother 'J on his deathbed. She never came back n again to witness. In February, 1884, 1 lie was passing through Napier, and saw o his wife then, but not to speak to her. 2 On Monday, November 30th, witness went j with his solicitor and Sergeant Burten- 2 shaw to the residence of the co-respondent l Saeffer, in Napier, and' there saw his h (witness's) wife and the co-respondent, h She admitted that she was witness's C wife, and that she was living with the co- s respondent. fl His Honor : This seems a most extra- \ ordinary story, a wife leaving her husband c after living with him only three weeks, v When did you first become acquainted £ with her? - I Witness : That was in 18S2. n His Honor : What was she then ? lj Witness : A dressmaker living with her ( father, a tobacconist. Witness was introduced to lite co-respondent Saeffer by I her about a week or two before the mar- n riage. She came to Auckland in the Te I Anau, and Saeffer arrived on the following ( week by, the Itqtomahana. Saeffer was 2 introduced to witness by the respondent I as a gentleman who had offered her mar- ( riage in Napier. She stated that she. had ] : refused to marry Saeffer. Shortly after v witness was manled his wife showed him I a letter from Saoffer in which he asked I her to come down to Napier and he would 1 marry her. Witness wrote to Saeffer I stating that she was married to him (wit- 1 ness), and that he (Saeffer) must therefore y cease writing. After she left witness she 1 wrote him a letter stating that she married ( him at a time when she liked somebody ( else better, and that she ought not to ( have done so, and therefore had left him. J Mr Moore called as the next witness 1 James Burtenshaw, crier of the Court. 5 His Honor, to Mr Moore, warmly: I £ disapprove of this procedure entirely. ] Why should you employ an officer of the ( Court as a witness ? He must elect to be i one thing oi another. He is either an .j officer of pho Court or your bailiff. This ( is a most indecent thing. He is not to be c an oilicer of the Court and a private detective at the same time. i Mr Moore: I regret that your Honor i should think it necessary to use that s term. There are very peculiar circum- ] Rtances which rendered it necessary to call " the witness. f His Honor : I say it is a most indecent ] thing. What difficulty could there be in ; proving adultery where a woman has been ; for two years living in the town with a ; man? Where was the difficulty of < proving adultery ? Any person who has ; known the woman to be living -with the man' could have gone with the petitioner, ; and the evidence would have been : sufficient. Mr Moore explained that it wag absolutely necessary, in order that the petitioner's case should bo proved, that somebody should be called who had known the respondent as Frances Mitchell Greening, who was married to the petitioner. Mr Burteushaw was the only person in Napier who had that knowledge. His Honor : It is very wrong to call an officer of the Court as ft witness, However, the mischief is dons, and you had better go on with the case. James Burtenshaw was called, and stepped into the witness-box. $Us Honor : Now, who is to administer the oath to the witness? The impropriety of the proceeding is apparent at once. Mr Moore: Would your Honor allow the Sheriff to do so, His Honor: He must do so, but llie necessity should not have arisen. The witness was then sworn by the Sheriff, and ho deposed that he knew the petitioner. He had known the respondent for years. She had been pointed out to him recently as the petitioner's wife. He had known her previously as Fanny Greening. He had tuso knpwn her as living with Saeffer at his place in Has-tings-street. She was called Mrs Saeffer. They appeared to be lifting as man and wife. Was iaat at the house with and at the request of the petitioner and the examining counsel, and vroni inf. 9 a room at the back. Mrs Eagleton and HaofFor were there. By examining counsel's instructions witness asked her if she was the petitioner's wife, and she said " Yes." At this stage bin Honor intimated that tlio case appeared quite clear enough. Mr Diclc, for the co-respondent, asked that the decree nisi might bo made without costs. . ■ His Honor saw no reason for doing any such thing, as costs had not been asked His Honor granted a] decree nisi, to be made absolute at the first sittings of the Court alter three months. The Court then adjourned till 10 0 clock this (Saturday) morning. in 1"""? ■■■■ """?
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBH18861204.2.13
Bibliographic details
Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7609, 4 December 1886, Page 3
Word Count
1,121SUPREME COURT—DIVORCE JURISDICTION. Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7609, 4 December 1886, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.