SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CII, Issue 11948, 20 July 1899, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Wednesday, July 19. (Before hia,.Honor-Mr Justice Denniston.) Hi 3 'Honor Mr Justice Deraiiston sat in Bance at eieven o?clock. U' ■ • Hickmoti ’ and. Another v. Vincent.—Mr Stringer informed the Court that the questions involved in this case had been settled, IN DIVORCE. Smith v. Smith.—Mr-Bruges for the petitioner ; Messrs Barclay and Kirk for the respondent. In this case the petitioner, John James Smith, sued for a dissolution of marriage with his wife, Annie Agnes Smith, on the ground of the alleged adultery of the latter -with one Arthur Walcott, whq. had several aliases. The petitioner had been married at the Registrar's. Office at: Dunedin, and had lived a| 'man and %ife at Christchurch,; Dunedin and Sydney, baling no issue. It was alleged that the wife of the corespondent had obtained a divorce from her husband in. Sydney;' on the ground of his adultery with the respondent in the present action. The defence was a denial of the adultery, condonation of the alleged ofiences, and further that the petitionerhad, on his part, committed adultery with a person in Christchurch. . Mr Bruges called the petitioner, W. H. Travis, Emily Clements and Annie Guy. Mr Barclay called the respondent, who admitted misconduct with the correspondent, but deposed that on each of these-occa-sions her husband had again received her as his wife. Her husband had treated her with systematic, neglect, and she denied that she had, -as alleged, lived in Christchurch with the co-respondent under the names of Mr and- Mrs Wallace. On resuming after the luncheon adjournment the respondent was cro.ss-ex-aminedr.atjlength,- and ..Emmeline Barge, called by Mr Barclay,, also gave evidence. The counter-charge w;is then proceeded •with, and after Victor Austin Hill and the respondent had given their evidence, his Honor said that the counter-charge had absolutely broken down. Considering the free and easy way in which the marital relations of 'the petitioner and the respondent had been carried out, he had grave doubts as to whether the petitioner’s conduct entitled him to come to that Court, and ask for a divorce, simply because an alimony suit had . been instituted against him: .

Mr Bruges said that’ with reasonable time he could show such cause, and at 4.20 p.m. his Honor adjourned further hearing on this account until eleven o’clock next morning. . ' ' . .■ ' ,