A WELLINGTON DIVORCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue 9480, 6 December 1907, Page 8

A WELLINGTON DIVORCE.

SOME PECULIAR FEATURES.

L PEESS ASSOCIATION.] WEjuIINGTUJN, December 5.

There were some unusual features about a partially heard divorce case heard' before Mr Justice Button to-day. The parties to the case were ftobert Esther Anderson, tram conductor, v. Alice Mary Anderson, the groumd of the petition being alleged improper conduct with Alex. Biinie, grocer. t .Last week the petitioner appeared and gave evidence. The respondent did not appear, but the proceedings were adjourned until to-day in order to give counsel for respondent an opportunity of appearing.

- Has Honor stated that Mi's Anderson had called at his hotel and saw him. He told her he could not hear her until this morning, but she made certain statements. It was improper for any person to call on a Judge in such a way.

J^etitioner was examined.

Counsel: Respondent said that since the proceedings started you cut off . heir hair?

Petitioner : I did cut off a small piece. He then alleged that he did it in order to ensure the cleanliness of his wife and child. His Honor (to Mis Anderson) : How. much did he cut off? Jttespo— dent : It is all off. This hair I that I have now is false. His' Honor : If it is all off we can see. .^respondent : I can take it oft His Honor: I think you had better: 'Respondent: Where will I take it off? His Honor consulted the Deputy-Regis-trar, and said: "There is a room here." The respondent, who originally appeared with neatly arranged black tresses, left the Court for a few minutes, and then smilingly returned. Her hair was parted in the centre, and hung loosely Tound her neck.

His Honor remarked: That is not all

Respondent: It has been cut since August, and it has grown since then. His Honor: I understood from what you .said to me that it was all off your head. It is not, of course.

At this stage counsel, who had been mentioned as appearing for the respondent, intimated through Mr Herdman that he had abandoned the proceedings. Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had cohabitated with her from 18th June until Ist August, and that he said he did not intend to go on with the divorce proceedings.

Eventually the case was provisionally adjourned until noon to-morrow in order to give each party an opportunity of calling further evidence.