DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 869, 26 October 1888, Page 17

DIVORCE COURT.

Thursday, October 25. (Before Mr Justice Richmond.) VINE V. VINE AND EMERY. This was a petition by Edward Vine, painter, for a dissolution of his marriage with Louisa Vine, on the grounds of her adultery with Thomas Emery, carpenter. Mr Skerrett appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the respondent or co-respondent, neither were they represented by counsel. The petitioner stated that he was married in December, 1877, to Louisa Atkinson at Christchurch, at which place he resided for a little over two years. After that she came to Wellington in consequence of ill-health. Witness followed about a fortnight after, but found she was notin Wellington. From whathe heard he went to Wanganui, where he found his wife living with the co-respondent. Witness had known Emery previously in Christchurch, but he had no reason to suspect that there was any undue intimacy between him and the respondent. Emery left Christchurch about a week before witness’ wife. When he saw' liis wife at Wanganui she told him that she intended to live with Emery. H.e then left Wanganui for Wellington, where he

stayed for sometime?. About four l ™^ l ® after, he saw his wife and Emery m Manners-street, Wellington. They left next day, and he understood they went to Kaikottra. Witness did not . speak to them.- Witness went back to Christcharch a*aitf, find,- after he had been there lev about three* months, Emery and Ins wife came to live tfifere., He saw them irequently. ■ but he did not speak to them. They remained at Christchurch for about two years, and then went avr»y, He had. v not seen his wife since. Mr Skerrett said she was nort living; with bur father in Christchurch. The petitioner said that he had put trio matter in the hands of a Wellington solicitor (who lias since left the city) in 1885. In answer to his Honour, he said that he had not taken proceedings before, as he could net afford it- There a difficulty about serving the citation on the co-respondent, who was then in Sydney. The solicitor repeatedly told him that there Was some delay over the matter, and the necessary papers could not he served on Emery unless some money was paid, which witness gave him. He coula not say whether the Solicitor ever sent the money to Sydney. He took up the , proceedings about a month ago. He gave the solicitor He had first employed about £ls in all.- Had had no communications with his wife*, and he did not know what she was doing.' There were no children by the marriage. He followed her to Wellington from Christchurch because he had learned that she had gone with Emery. . Lawrence Callaghan, residing at Addington, Christchurch, deposed that he* had known the respondent for a number of years, before and after her marriage with Vine. Remembered her living with Emery, at Addington, for some time. Mrs. Vine was now'in Christchurch living with her brother and his wife. Did not know what had become of Emery. Janet Wilson, wife of Robert Wilson, residing at Addington, deposed that Emery had lived with Mrs Vine as his wife, about five years ago. Mrs. Vine was now living at Addington, but witness never communicated with her. Did not know what , had become of Emery. Was not aware that the petitioner had had any communication with his wife since Emery had lived with her. This was all the evidence, Mr Skerrett stated that he had written to the solicitor’s firm in Sydney, with whom the solicitor the petitioner had first employed had communicated, with reference to the service on the co-respon-dent, and he had received a message in reply, to the effect that, as the managing clerk of the firm was not now available, they were unable to give any information with reference tothe service. Hi&Honour said there had been considerable delay about the case, but he could nob altogether blame Vine, who was a poor man, and-if the story he had told was t true, it was an utterly. discreditable one for the solicitor he had first employed. His Honour agreed to grant a decree nisi, subject to satisfactory proof as to the service of the citation on the co-respondent. The Court then adjourned.