THE DUNEDIN DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 754, 13 August 1886, Page 14

THE DUNEDIN DIVORCE CASE.

(UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.'. Dunedin, August 5. In delivering judgment yesterday, in the divorce case, Mills v. Mills and Ferrier, Mr Justice Williams said the case had been, adjourned in order to allow him to consider whether or not the presence of petitioner was indispensable. The 23rd section of the. Act provided that the Court must satisfy itself whether or not a petitioner had been in any manner accessory to or had connived at the adultery, or whether he had condoned the same. Section 35 also implied that this Court must be satisfied of the absence of collusion, before the Court, in the absence of the petitioner, consented to grant a divorce. There wa3 no absolute mle on the point ; but it had been the practice for petitioners to be examined. However, the Wellington case of McGee showed that there was no rule on the subject. In the present case, if the petitioner had been in attendance he could not have given material evidence in support of the charges. They were, clearly proved by other witnesses. The absence was also nnavoidable, and, in addition, collusion on his part was absolutely negatived by the evidence of witnesses. If the petitioner’s absence was clearly and satisfactorily explained, and there was nothing in the evidence to suggest connivance, condonation, or collusion, he (his Honor) ciuld see no reason why the decree asked should not be granted in his absence. A decree nisi granted, with costs against the corespondent.