LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9091, 27 June 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings. Tuesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.]

Laiikin v. O'Brikn.—This was a claim for dissolution of partnership, andfortaking accounts. This case had been argued 011 the previous day, and His Honor now granted a decree for dissolution of the partnership from the .10th of December, 1887, accounts to bo token by tho Registrar, accounts as settled between the parties to August, ISSO, not to be disturbed, and the question of costs to be reserved.

L. EiIRKNFRIIVD V. PATRICK Lyncii.— This was an action for possession of the Greyhound Hotel, and mesne profits, £150, and rent, £12 )os. Mr. Baume appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Tole for the defence. There was a counter claim. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff let the hotel to the defendant as a weekly tenant, at a, rental of £12 10s per week, from the 29Ui of August, 1887, and he continued as t/jnant to the 21st of May, when he receiver I notice to quit. Defendant did not regard the notice, and ho retained possession. The statement of defence denied all tho material allegations, and further alleged that there was an agreement by the plaintiff to sub-lease to the defendant for the remainder of his term, up to the 31st December, 1888, at £12 10s per week payable weekly, also that he paid £100 for the stock-in-trade, and incurred expenses in making improvements, and continued in possession under that agreement. He denied that the tenancy was determined, and alleged that the notice to quit was insufficient. There was a counter claim to which Mr. Baume tool: objection, and asked that it be struck out, as it was virtually the statement of defence, bub His Honor granted leave to amend the counter claim. It alleged that defendant had applied to the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement, but he had failed to do so. To this plaintiff filed a defence, denying ever having made such an agreement, parole or otherwise. Mr. Baume said that defendant was the present licensee of the hotel. The] plaintiff gave evidence as to letting the hotel to the defendant as a weekly tenant, at £12 10s per week, the stock, furniture, and unexpired license to bo taken at a valuation.' Defendant said ho had only £100, and asked witness to advance him the money, and ho would undertake to pay off £20 a month. He also asked witness if he could have the lease for IS months, but witness distinctly told him he would accept him as nothing else than a weekly tenant, as ho was under a heavy penalty to Mr. L. I). Nathan if anything should happen to the license. That the police and Licensing Committee were very much dissatisfied with the manner in which he (defendant) had formerly conducted hotols, and lie (witness) would run no risk in that direction. Defendant said he was now an older and a wiser man, and he need not fear anything in that way, that he intended to conduct the Greyhound Hotel in such a way that neither police nor anyone else would have reason to find fault with him. Witness said on that condition he would advance the money to enable him to go into the hotel, but repeated that it was only as a weekly tenant that he accepted him. Witness had nothing but trouble ever since. Defendant went into the house, and he had him served with a notice to quit, but' he refused to go out, and told witness he would puthim to a considerable amount of trouble before he got him out. The plaintiff was cross-examined at some length. After hearing the evidence, his Honor ordered that the defendant give up possession immediately, to pay £75, and to pay costs on the lower scale on the claim and counter-claim.

Divorce Court. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.]

Wrattv. Wratt.—This was ail application for divorce on the grounds of the wife's adultery. John Wratt was the petitioner, and Elizabeth Wratt the respondent, and Win. Coward co-respondent. The application for a rule nisi had been heard at a previous sitting of the Court, and judgment was reserved. Mr. E. Hesketh appeared for the petitioner to take judgment. His Honor delivered judgment as follows :In this case, whicli was heard before me on the sth April last, the petitioner and respondent were married in 1861, and for fourteen years appear to have lived together comfortably, having seven children born of their marriage, the youngest of whom was born in 1875. About this time, apparently, the petitioner became jealous of his wife, and suspicious of her conduct with a man named Freeman. He swears that the respondent confessed to him about the end of 1875 or the beginning of 1876 that she had committed adultery with Freeman, but from the manner in which the plaintiff gave his evidence upon the point, and from the surrounding circumstances, I am not inclined to give credence to this statement. From the time when the petitioner became jealous, he appears to have frequently taunted his wife

in regard to Freeman. She retaliated with scorn and contempt, and frequent family squabbles occurred in consequence, and for four or five years they have lived a miserable life together. In 1880 he broke up his home in Marlborough and removed to the Waikato, leaving behind him his wife and youngest child, she, as he swears, having refused to accompany him. He gave her £10 for her support, but though frequently, applied to by her, by letter, for further assistance, he returned no answer to any of her applications, and seems never to have urged her to return to cohabitation. She remained in Blenheim and Nelson until 1882, when she came to the city of Auckland. She renewed her application to him for assistance, which he refused to give. In 1883, being in destitute circumstances, she took proceedings against the petitioner for support, which eventuated in his paying her the sum of £40 upon the execution of a deed of mutual separation, and she then endeavoured to maintain herself by keeping a boardinghouse in Auckland, but finding herself in difficulties formed an adulterous connection with the co-respondent in 1884, resulting in the birth of a child in January, 1885. The petitioner, although living in the city of Auckland since 1883, appears to have taken no trouble to ascertain where his wife was living or what she was doing, and professes total ignorance of her conduct until the end of October, 1887. The respondent then having been abandoned by the co-respondent, and being in destitute circumstances, again took proceedings against the petitioner for maintenance. When examined on oath in Court she admitted her adultery with the co-respondent, and the petitioner then immediately took tho present proceedings. The adultery in the present case is abundantly proved, both by the admissions of the respondent and co-respondent, and the evidence of person 5 who knew them liv-

ing together as man and wife. This would prima facie entitle the petitioner to a decree for the dissolution of the marriage, but if a petitioner is guilty of wilful neglect or misconduct, conducing to the adultery, he ceases to be entitled to this remedy. In my opinion, the petitioner has been guilty of such wilful neglect and misconduct. For seven years after his removal from Malborough he permits the respondent to live apart from him, making no inquiry as to her mode of living, turning a deaf ear to all her appeals for assistance, making no request for her to return to cohabitation, contributing nothing towards her support, except when compelled to. These things appear to me to constitute wilful neglect, and to be such misconduct as clearly conduced to the adultery complained of. Indeed, if the respondent's testimony is to be believed, it was her destitute circumstances which were the immediate cause of the adultery complained of, the co-respon-dent having promised to provide for her. Under these circumstances, the petition must be dismissed.

John David McLean, Petitioner. ; Elizabeth Gardner McLean, Respondent ; and Frdk.. Iredale, Co-respon-dent. —Mr. E. Hesketh moved that the decree nisi be mode absolute as against the co-respondent. His Honor said that the appeal to the Court of Appeal having been dismissed, and there being no response, decree nisi, would be made absolute, with costs, against the co-respondent.

Humphreys v. Humphreys. —Thomas Mace James Humphreys, solicitor, was the petitioner ; Rosin a Ann Mace Humphreys, respondent; and John Kerr, Frank Matson and Charles Fallon, co-respondents. The application was for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of adultery with the co-respondents. Mr. H. Campbell appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent or co-respondents. Mr. Campbell put in the formal evidence. Thomas James Mace Humphreys, barrister and solicitor, and the petitioner in this case, deposed that he was married to respondent on 12th October, 1869, at Hansen, his name being at that, time Thos. Jas. Mace. He produced the certificate. He took the additional name of Humphreys early in 1881. He was a little over 20 when ho married, and his wife was 17. After their marriage they lived in Dublin, where he held an appointment in the PaymasterGeneral's office, and they cohabited there for seven years up to 18715, when he went to Cambridge, whero they lived and cohabited until 1 SSI, when he took his degree of 8.A., and took orders in the Episcopalian Church. He was then appointed to a church in Leamington, Warwickshire, and there he lived and cohabited with his wife until June, 1883,. when he shipped on board the Hermione with his wife for New Zealand. One child had been born in 1871, one in 1873, and one in July, 1878. He left England because his eldest daughter developed strong symptoms of consumption, and his medical attendant advised him to seek a warmer climate, and he left England early in June, 1883, on the ship Hermione, and arrived at Auckland on October . 14, 1883. John Kerr was chief officer of the ship ; Frank Matson was a saloon passenger. They belonged to his little " set" on board. Witness' cabin was in the saloon. When on board witness had been a blue ribbonite, and organised a Blue Ribbon Army on board ; but his wife was in the habit of taking stimulants. The second saloon passengers were allowed certain stimulants, but this was interrupted, as some of the crew broached spirits, and the captain gave orders that none of the passengers should give spirits to the crew. The captain discovered his daughter Daisy taking a bottle of stout to the cook, and he prohibited any second cabin passenger receiving drink for the remainder of the voyage. He believed his wife still received supplies, but could not swear it. On their arrival in Auckland, they went to the Star Hotel, where they remained four days, and a party was given by Mr. Stern and Mr. Matson to the officers of the ship on the 19th of October, Witness, the respondent, and John Kerr were present. On the morning of the 10 th or '20th, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning, he woke and found Mrs. Humphreys was not in bed, and after waiting for some time he assumed that she had gone to the bathroom, but not finding her there, lie asked Mr. Sterns if he had seen anything of Mrs. Humphreys. He replied he had not, but they both went to Mr. Matson's room. He knocked, stating who he was, and the door was opened by Mrs. Humphreys. Ho asked her what was the meaning of this, and she replied she had just looked in to see how Mr. Matson was, as he was ill the previous night. As he looked on the bed on which Mr. Matson was lying his eye caught sight of a blue gurdle which ho recognised as the girdle of her dressing-gown, and he told her at once to go to her bedroom. He asked Mr. Matson, " What is the meaning of this ?" He replied he did not know, because he had just woke up. To His Honor : His wife was then dressed in her blue dressing gown, and it was about a quarter of an hour after he had first missed her on awaking. It was at Sterns' suggestion they went to .Matson's room. Examination resumed : He had words with his wife. She went down on her knees and assured him there was nothing wrong between her and Mr. Matson. He soon after went out for a walk with Mr. Sterns, who succeeded in calming him, and he told Mr. Sterns that if Mrs. Humphreys and Mr. Matson assured him there was nothing criminal between them he would be satisfied. This they both did, and he was satisfied, so satisfied that he had forgotten the incident until it was brought to his mind by Mr. Sterns a short tima ago. They left the Star Hotel and went to Gothic House, Grey-street, on the 21st October, and remained there three weeks. Mrs. Tysdale was the landlady. Witness was away at Whangarei for a week looking after the head mastership of the high school, which was vacant. During the time they were staying at Gothic House the co-respondents were visitors. After leaving Gothic House, he took a house in Newmarket, and he was then teaching in the Newton East Government school. His wife cohabited with him until June 4th, 1885. She then received a letter announcing that her father was seriously ill, and desired to see her. With witness' consent, she left Auckland on the 4th June, ISBS, with two of the three children, per steamer Tongariro. Mr. Charles White, who was attached to witness' eldest girl, went home with them. At that time he had invested in mines at the Upper Thames' and the LaMonte furnace, and he arranged a code by which he could cable to her the result of the process, and cable her money to enable her to come out. LaMonte's operations were unsuccessful, and he was unable to send for his wife and family, but he had sent) remittances. After he found these operations were unsuccessful, lie turned to study law, and after being admitted, he practiced

for twelve months at the Thames. Whik there he arranged with Captain Tayloi of the Rangit-ikei, one of the New Zealand Company's vessels, to send out his wife and family. He first learnt the facts which made him take these proceedings after Mr.. White's return from England in November, last year. He only learnt part from Mr. White, and it was not until a month after that he learnt the rest from Mr. Sterns. By His Honor: To his own knowledge, there was nothing more than finding her in Matson'a bedroom that gave rise to his suspicions, and he would not have attached much importance to that but for finding her girdle on the bed; for she was very kind to sick people. The Court then adjourned until half-pasb ton o'clock next morning.

POLICE COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.]

Drunkenness.James Kane and Thos. Garlick were fined 5s and costs, or twentyfour hours' imprisonment, and Mathias Mason was fined 10s and costs, or fortyeight hours' imprisonment, for this offence. The Thistle Hotel Robbery.—Wm. Anderson Crombie was again brought up on remand, charged with breaking out of the Thistle Hotel on June 14, and stealing therefrom a bottle of whisky and a bottle of rum, valued at 5s each. The evidence for the prosecution was put in last week. Mr. Napier addressed the Court for the defence, asking that the case might be dealt with summarily. The Resident Magistrate refused to do so, saying he should treat it as an indictable case, and committed the prisoner to take his trial at the Supremo Court at the next criminal sessions. Bail was granted, himself in. £75, and two sureties of £40 each.