A STRANGED DIVORCE CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6817, 22 September 1883, Page 2 (Supplement)

A STRANGED DIVORCE CASE

In the Supremo Court of Judicature, Probite aud Divorce Division, London, before the President, Mr J 1/anncn, and i common jury, was decid d the ici'iiikablo divorce . ease of Haruson \. Huiison and HaiPbon 111 this i"se the husb-uul sued foi a dnoree on the g ound of his wifes adultery.with the co-respondent and with some othei person to tho petitioner unknown The risnomUnt and co-respondent answeied and denied the adultery. 'Lhe p-ulies veie married at Stepney on the 26th July, ISjS In orue- to make his way iu th< world tho petitioner went out to Indp, loading his wife in Eng'and until ha should rind a suitable nsidciee for her. In TBGS he bcciime a putner in a linn of oierchautscitlying on buai luisiuCUcutta He then sent for his wife, aad Oj < ontinii" i to live tlieie, although the p titioner hi J occasion sometimes to h d lialt with his wife's conduct One night io tVbiua'j, ISG7," on the pctitioi or coming home from ljusiupsa, he touud his wite ausent The I servants told him th.it she had g me out m the carriage, tut that the c*iin:>;o h id returned without her. The petitionej "ould get no tidings of hel until three o'clock in the morning, when she ciine to th" gate The . petitioner at first i efubed to kt her in, bat after some tiJie lie did so aud smt hti to her owe room In the troiuing, bi fore the petitioner wtnt to business, he asL. d h<>r where ehe had been; or with whom she hail been. She told t'le petitioner thit she hid left her own cirruij;o aud went into th vt of a peatloman, who drove her to his lodgings and took her into his room.-" She also told hini that she had got the worac for druk, and thit the gentleman ha 1 dm en hei home The petitioner told iier thit he could ro longel t live with her, and soon alter Ik> "ent her home i to England, making her an allowance of £G | a month. On coming to England the rc->p n | deut wont to h\e <it tlie bou«c of tlie petitionor's pirents in London, -With w ho-n the cb-respondent, Heiiry/HaVnson;;w'hpi9 a brother of the petitioher, s al9O resided: 1 She; remained there until respondent and: the^'co-respondenttleft •=the; bouse, the fonner. gline; .to'. reside;;/at; I 'PimKc9 : .! and the latter at Po'tilarJ'-xiiftef'tnat tlie par-) ties were Continually, together in" each other's rooms, sometimes remaining: with'eaeh'other: all uijjht. . When the , petitioner/eame>home to take up his residt;nce'.infEngian'l?in v ':lSB2 he instituted the" preaentVauic.'-gsThe » peti-; tioner was called'and stated the circumstances just detailed. i-iThe respondent,'';Mrs'/ , ;'Emily' Harrison, then went into the witness box and gave a positive denial to the charges against her. She did not deny that at oho time,she was a little given to~*drink,*-but after she came to England and took up ■■ her residence with her father-in-laWiiri'JlSßiishej'entirely got rid of it. She hls'6 admitted having met a gentleman while dining in " the S'rand," in Calcutta, on the Ist of February,\;lßG7,''and getting into his He'said;he had just left her huubaud and "that he»wss going to dine with them that, evening.f; After she gob into his carriage the gentleman: asked her to have a glass of wine, and they .drove to Spence'n Hotel for the purpose. -'is, They had the wine in a public.:rOom,t!and\kthen returned to the carriage,: the*geutleman saying he could drive-her ihoine. f : After she got into the carriage shot lost all, conscipusnesa and did not regain it until she found herself standing at her husband's gate. She thought that was about elevon o'clock, but she did not get in for three or four hours. Mr. Henry Harrison,. the corespondent, also denied the charg?s against him. Tho jury, without retiring, gave a verdict to tho effect that the respondent had not committed adultery with a man unknown, and that she had not committed adultery with the co-respp.ndqnfc, nor he with her. The Court accordingly dismissed tho petition, with costs. ■:-..•■ - ■-./ ■;.-. ; .