VERDICT FOR PETITIONER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 17 June 1922, Page 5

VERDICT FOR PETITIONER

The jury returned at 12.50 p.m. with an answer in the affijrmatiye on. both issues (a vordiotl for the petitioner). A decree nisi was granted, to be made'Nabsolut© in three, months; the petitioner to pay respondents costs on the lower scale up to £4O j the corespondent to pay petitioner’s costs on toe lower scale, including the costs payable to, respondent, UNDEFENDED. OA^E DAMAGES 1 CLAIMED John Thomas Carter, of Moteuka, labourer, (petitioner), v. Mary Ann Carter (respondent) ; and ' James Downhajn (of, Hastings, orcharchst), co-respondent. \ petition for disjoin" tion of marriage. > ’ The case was undefended. Mr Hayes appeared for the petitioner. Following jury was called:—G. ,W. Jack, J.'W. Ching, W. Oh©el, E. Richards, F. H. Gorrie E. Langbem, G.‘ Ricketts, W. Nqad, J.. Delaney, W. B. Travers, W. A. Jessop, N. F. Edwards, ’ Mr Travers was chosen foreman. . Mr Hayes? said it! was a petition for divorce which had to come before a jury, as damages were sought, . The .petitioner, in evidence, said he was married on November 19th, 1896, at Eangiora, coming later to live at Motneka. His wife lived with him up to about three years ago. There were seven children of the marriage. There was another child horn in Motneka three years ago, which he did not recognise as his owp. Hjs wife when slio left hfih.did/not say ' where she was going, and he'had not heard from her since* He lateip-iaw .her in the street at Hastings in March last with the corespondent . Witness asked her if she was coining hojne. She said slio was going to stay wh©r© she was and live with'thu corespondent. As a result of his wife leaving him he had to put some of his children in an orphanage. The child which he did not recognise had been taken away by his wife and corespondent. To His Honour: They lived happily together until corespondent appeared about six yfears ago. Petitioner also gave evidence as to meetings between respondent and corespondent in Riwaka and Motneka. • Evidence was also given, by a son of petitioner, f His Honour put three issues to the jury: (1) Did respondent commit misconduct with corespondent?; (2) did' corespondent commit misconduct with 'respondent?; (5) if so, what damages is petitioner, entitled to A verdict was returned for petitioner after a short retirement; and £l5O damages awarded against corespondent, ' A decree wa«i granted, to be made absolute in tore© months, with costs on the lower scale against co respondent .