CURIOUS DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8986, 17 September 1892, Page 2 (Supplement)

CURIOUS DIVORCE CASE.

In the Divorce Court, London, a few days ago, Mr. Justice Barnes had before him the part heard case of Ward v. Ward. The petitioner was Mrs. Alice Ward, and she sought for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground of her husband's desertion, bigamy, and adultery. The parties were married at Hartlepool on July 26, 1865. The evidence of the petitioner, which was taken on commission, was read to the court on the last occasion, and stated that in August, 1868, the respondent went to America, leaving her in this country. Up to 1870 he corresponded with her, occasionally sending her money, but after that year she received no letter from him, and believing him to be dead she in April, 1881, went through the ceremony of marriage with Dugald Barclay, at Govan, in Scotland, the banns having been published, in which she describes herself as a widow. She cohabited with Barclay down to November, 1890,. On the 21st of that month she was visited by a person who called himself Williamson," and who told her that her husband was alive, and had married in America. While talking with " Williamson" she was convinced that he was Ward, her first husband, and on intimating her suspicions to him he protested that his name was Williamson. After he had gone, she caused inquiries to be made, and found that there was no doubt that the person who had visited her was her first husband. On that ehe ceased to live with Barclay. In addition to Mrs. Ward's evidence there was an affidavit by Robert Ward, the husband, in which he stated that he was the man who was married to the petitioner, and that on October 4, 1887, he had contracted a bigamous marriage with Isabella Lorenquo, in New York, with whom he subsequently cohabited. Proof was also given that such a marriage had taken place. The case was adjourned for affidavits that the respondent was the man then married. An affidavit was produced in which the petitioner swore that the signature to the affidavit was her husband's signature, and that she had not connived at the production of the affidavit or arranged that it should be made. On this his lordship pronounced decree nisi, with co3tsi ff ; ' ;T ;' ; !.'