DIVORCE COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXII, Issue 7414, 3 December 1884, Page 5

DIVORCE COURT.

THE MOXi'KTftS CASE. ■ I'sa I'KKfrH AswK'UTIOS.] WKLUNOTON. D*c. 2. In the Diverve Court MancktaO v. Monekton was heard. This was a jK'tition for diMcoluti. n of marriag** on the part of the »if*-, Kiv.ma Moackton. IVtitioner deposed: 1 am the w ife of Charles Henry Menckton. And was niarned b> him in Auckland on Nov. 23. ISSI. when I was 12 year* and two amalhs old. Mrs Lynch lived with ua after the marriage. I had been previously living With Mrs Lynch, and Monckton had b'en cohabiting with her, I was forced into marrbgv by llmuiU and persuasion. Monckton said he would turn me and Mrs Lynch (two sister?.) out into the streets if I did not marry him. Mr* Lynch also persuaded me to marry him. My sister passed for my mother at the man iage, and my ago was stated to bo 15 years. My mother was dead at the time, and my father was imbecile. I did not occupy the same room as my husband that night. Mrs Lynch did. * (Witness described in detail her movements for some months after marriage, resulting in her escaping from her husband-) I declined to go bark to my husband because I hated him. He waa recently sentenced to a term of imprisonment for making a false declaration under the Marriage Act. Alice Baxter, alias Lynch olios Howell, was next called. She refused to answer whether she was the sister of petitioner or not. His Honor warned her that she might be punished for contempt of Court if she declined to answer reasonahie question*. Witness said she could not swear to what she did not know. She went on to say that to the best of her belief petitioner was her sister. Mr D. C. Cooper was the only other witness examined, and he gave evidence as to Lynch and Monckton having been sentenced for making a falsa declaration. This was petitioner's cases and the matter was then adjourned for argument before hb Honor as to the question of legal cruelty. In Grey v. Grey, the case was heard in cauwra. The petitioner was Jane Mary Stanislaus O’Kearne. and the petition set forth that the marriage took place at Wellington in December, I SSI. At the time of marriage petitioner was 26 and the respondent (James Grattan Grey, 84) and respondent was then and had been since unable to consummate the marriage. The last allegation was denied by respondent. Eventually the evse was adjourned to enable the evidence of respondent to be taken on Commission in Melbourne. In Morris v. Morris a rule nisi was granted.