DIVORCE COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 127, 14 May 1912, Page 6

DIVORCE COURT.

THE CONINGHAM VERDICT.

Wellington, May 14.

The jury, in the Coninghata ease, after a retirement of forty minutes,; found the respondent had committed adultery on the dates mentioned. The petition for a decree nisi was granted with costs against Coningham.

THE MEWHINNEY SUIT..

Wellington, May 13.

The costs arising from legal advice and attendance in the Mewhinney v. Mewhinney divorce proceedings, etc.,' recently decided by the Divorce Court, were the subject of a case be-, fore Mr. Justice Cooper to-day. A jury of four had been empannelled, but it was decided at a certain’stage to discharge them, and the ca.se was continued before His Honour alone. The parties were Gray and Jackson, solicitors, Wellington (plaintiffs) ana Oliver Mewhinney, civil servant, Myers appeared for the plaintiffs and the defendant appeared iii person. It appeared from the statement of claim that Messrs. Gray and Jack-, son. had acted for Mewhinneyis wife (Netti Lena Mewhinney) in the divorce proceedings in March, 1910, wherein the wife obtained -ar-decree nisi, the court ordering the respond ent (defendant in the present action) to pay the petitioner’s party-and-party costs of suit on the lower, scale, with an allowance of £l6/15/-. for one day extra, and the costs <f interlocutory proceedings, witnesses' expenses and disbursements. The costs up to the decree nisi were taxed and allowed at £65/3/6, with witnesses expenses and disbursements amounting to £33/13/6, and the defendant paid the sum of £97/13/- in satisfaction of such allowance. The defendant afterwards paid the sum of £7/16/- for party-and-party costs of subsequent orders for maintenance, etc. After giving credit for these sums the defendant was still indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of £254/5/2. . Mewhinney, in his statement or defence, said he had obeyed the order for payment by him of hi? wife’s party-and-party costs, feut declared that the decree nisi was made by consent of parties and not on the merits of the case. He denied that he was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of £254/5/2, or in any sum whatever. Consequently he repudiated their bill of costs,/which -hc declared was excessive and exorbit ant. For a further defence he said that the plaintiff’s client was not successful in her action, which was mainly over the custody of the children, and which carried almost en tirely the whole of the expenses. He also alleged that the case was not fairly or property conducted nor the expenses property or reasonably incurred, and that had the plaintiffs made a proper investigation and enquiry they would have seen that there was no probability of ultimate suc-

cess. The ease was not concluded when the court rose for the day.