A CURIOUS CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7836, 4 January 1887, Page 6

A CURIOUS CASE.

Ax action of Caron v. Caroa was brought before Mr. Justice Williams in the Melbourne Supreme Court, in which the plaintiff, Mrs. Eleanore Caron, sued the defendant, Leon Caron, & musician, to recover £204, an amount due as arrears of an allowance - which the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff under a deed of separation. The defendant pleaded that the deed of separation was entered into by mutual mistake, under the belief that the plaintiff and he had been legally married to each other, whereas the m»rt"i«go between them was not leijal. "It was ttatid in the pleadings that the plaintiff had been married at Boulogne, in France, to one Wm, Bowles, and there was a separation between her and Bowles, and she went to New York, whore she obtained a decree of divorce from Bowles. After the divorce the plaintiff married the defendant, Leon Caron. They subsequently came to Australia, but about four years ago they separated. By the deed of separation, Caron agreed to pay to his wife a sum oi £3 per week. The defendant alleged that the divorce between the plaintiff and Bowles decreed by the Supreme Court of .New York .was invalid, inasmuch as the marriage which had been dissolved was not celebrated in New York, and Bowles was not domiciled in that State. The plaintiff replied that Caron was aware of the circumstances under which the divorce had been granted ; that he was in New York at the time, and had married the plaintiff with the full knowledge of the circumstances. This case was to have been heard before the Supreme Court in October last, but the defendant applied for a postponement to enable him to obtain a commission to examine witnesses in France and New York as to the marriage between the plaintiff and Bowles, and as to the subsequent divorce. The postponement was allowed, and a commission for the examination of witnesses was also granted on condition that the defendant paid the costs of the adjournment. These costs had not bqea paid, nor bad the order for the coinmisjjion been taken out, and the plaintiff set down a case for trial before a Judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Isaacs appeared for the plaintiff. There was no appearance for the defendant. After evidence had been given of the execution of the deed of separation by the defendant, and other formal evidence, Hi* Honor directed judgment to becgiven for the plaintiff for £204 and, costs.