DIVORCED AFTER TWENTYEIGHT YEARS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12861, 9 May 1905, Page 6

DIVORCED AFTER TWENTYEIGHT YEARS.

Robert Siieill Kixkear, of Toorak Road, Melbourne, was last week granted an order nisi dissolving his marriage with Maty Watson Kinnear, on the ground of desertion. Tho marriage took place in 1877, and the parties resided at Overflow station, Nymagee, where petitioner carried on business as a grazier. Up till 1896 they lived together, and in that year respondent, who hated station life, made a second visit to England. The only son of the marriage went to South Africa in connection with the war, and died there of enteric fever. Mrs. Kinnear then sent a letter from Capetown on August 13, 1901, stating her determination not to return to her husband. She wrote: "Of course, us you are aware, it is not the first time in our lives that I have thought of separation, and since the miserable snapping of one bond between us 1 have felt more and more the-impossibility of renewing our life together. For myself. I shall go back to my own people;, until 1 have settled a plan of making my own arrangements, which I have now ii> contemplation. No doubt you will want to have some of Bob's things," and if you will let me know your wishes I will carry out all that I reasonably can, but of course I wish to retain something for myself. Of my things left in Australia, all that I am particular about having are my photographs and the Chinese lacquer work table, which belonged to my mother. The photographs of Bob you will probably wish to keep. I have others. There are one or two small silver things which belong solely to me which you can perhaps separate and send. The silver tea set and all the other things 1 suggest that you sell, if you think lit." Her decision not to return -was, she added, irrevocable. Petitioner sent on the things she asked for and replied to her letters, urging her to return. " Although, perhaps, there have been small differences between us in the past," he wrote, "yet surely they have not been sufficient to part us for ever, after a life of 24 years spent together; and if you will return to me I shall do my utmost in the future to make our joint life as happy as possible and free from any kind of quarrels, knowing,' as I now do, what you feelings have sometimes been in the past." To this respondent simply replicjd from her parents' residence in London, adhering to her decision not to return. This ended the correspondence.. The suit was uude- { fended*