DIVORCE COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10271, 13 February 1894, Page 6

DIVORCE COURT.

[Pee Pbhss Association/] AUCKLAND. Feb. 12. In the Divorce Court proceedings, Joseph Bush petitioner v. Isabel Mary Bush respondent, Mr Justice Conolly granted a decree nisi. • 'There being no co-respondent; no costs were allowed. : v; This morning, at the Supremo Court, an' application for a decree nisi for a dissolution of marriage was before Mr 'Justice Conplly/ The petitioner* ■ was Charles Banister, a chemist tin the employ'of th&i Colonial. Sugar Eefiningi Company* at- [PijfA but formerly bfWeilingtori; Annie Maria; Banister ; land* Alfred -Pef6y| Purber, of 'Tairua, co-respondent; _; >• M» T. Cooper appeared > for the petitioner; The other .parties did not appear and were unrepresented. The petition for a dissolution of the marriage was read: by Mr Cooper, and stated that on Nov. 9, 1877, the petitioner was married by the Bev Mr Beid, of the Wesleyan Church, to hia wife, then Annie Maria Bartlett, at the residence of the petitioner's father,, at Johnsonville, near Wellington. They lived and cohabited at Wellington, and the issue of the marriage was two children, George Edwin, born in September, 1878, and Charles Spencer, born in December; 1879. On Jan. 26,1883, the petitioner’s wife left him at Wellington, but joined him at Fiji in February, 1885, and after I the expiration of three weeks she again left him; and iu each period they bad * not cohabited. The petitioner had resided in Fiji for the greater part of the period from February, 1885, and had not been able to discover any trace of his wife from the time she left him until April 22, 1893. The petition further stated that for four years the petitioner’s wife had been living with Alfred Percy Purber, a machinist at Tairua as his wife, and has had issue three children, which had been duly registered by her at Tairua. In opening the case, Mr Cooper brought under the notice of hia Honor a previous petition by the petitioner for a dissolution of the marriage, which was defended by a different corespondent, and came before the Chief Justice at Wellington. The Chief Justice had dismissed the petition. The petitioner gave evidence at length iu support of the petition. Edward B. Laiag, a retired Government officer on pension, deposed that he had known the petitioner for many years. Witness went to Tairua oa April 24, 1893, and saw the respondent. She said her name properly was Mrs Banister, but she was living with Purber, to whom she had three children. She referred to Banister and said there were faults on both sides, but the greater were on hers. ' She hoped that a divorce would take place without her having to come to Auckland. Witness had no doubt as to the relations between the respondent and Purber. Arthur O. Field, accountant to the Kaiori Timber Company, Tairua, and who held the position of registrar of births, deaths and marriages at Tairua, deposed as to the registration of the birth of a child when Purber was in the company’s employ. Mr and Mrs Purber came to Tairua about the same time, and had lived apparently as man and wife ever since. There were four children, three belonging to Purber. This was all the evidence. His Honor said it had been proved beyond all doubt that the respondent was living in adultery, and had been for some years. A decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage was granted without coats.