DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1136, 8 December 1893, Page 35

DIVORCE COURT.

Monday, December 4. (Before Mr Justice Richmond.) BERG V. BERG. Jessie Berg, domestic servant, applied for a dissolution of her morriage with Samuel Berg, bootmaker, on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. The petitioner was represented by Mr Poynton, but there was no appearance of the respondent, nor was he represented by counsel. . The petitioner stated that a year after her marriage in 1887 her husband admitted that he had had improper relations with other women. She had not received anything from her husband since he was brought before the Court in 1888. Mary Johns, mother of the petitioner, deposed that soon after the marriage her daughter became seriously ill, and she (witness) was told bj a doctor that her daughter had i contracted a certain disease from her husband. Berg then cleared out. Ethel j a

raw® v - ® owe - In this cas’o James RdY® applied for a dissolution of his mari£sg&' with Sarah Rowe on the ground of her adulfkjryo Mr Poynton appeared for the petitioner'. Rowe stated that four or five years after he was married he noticed that hie wife had taken to drink. He was then employed as-a fireman on the Hineinoa. He left the sea and went to work at Ngahauranga. On returning home one meaning he found that his wife had left with a fellowworkman. She left the two children, the youngest being only 11 weeks old. She returned after three or four months, and he condoned her offence. She gave birth to a child shortly after, of which he was not the father. About a year after this she again took to drink. Subsequently he went to Bulls to work, and then to Petane, near Napier. One day his wife left for Napier with a man named George Young, whom she had known at -Ngjahauranga. He complained of her conduct next day, and she told him he could clear out. He left her, and about 12 months afterwards she gave birth to twins. Young then left her. Witness was now paying off debts contracted by her while she was in Wellington. His Honor condemned the action of the petitioner in leaving his wife and children at Petane. Rowe replied that he had only gone to Melbourne as a fireman. Detective Gantley deposed that while her husband was awaiting his trial Mrs Rowe was living in a brothel in Napier. His Honor reserved his decision. WIGG V. WIGG. The decree in this case was made absolute, on the motion of Mr Bolton. In the Divorce Court on Tuesday, before the Chief Justice, the .case of Long v. Long, a petition for a dissolution- o£ marriage, was heard. Mr Jellicoe appeared for peti-

tioner, and Mr Skerrett for the respondent. The evidence of. Mrs Catherine Long showed that she was married to the respondent, Chas. Joynton Long, in St. Paul’s Church, Dunedin, in April, 1879. Three children, two of whom were now living, were born of the marriage. In November, 1890, she went on a visit to her mother in Melbourne, but during the three years she was there her husband wrote her two letters, and made her an allowance of ■£6 a month. In August, 1892, he came to Melbourne, when she observed a great change in his manner. She asked him to take her home, and he replied he would not live with her again for all the gold in the Indies ; that he loved someone else, and that she did not suit him. He confessed that he had been consorting with other women. She noticed that he no longer wore a ring she had given him to remember her by, but that he wore in, its place a ring bearing the name “ Cherry.” He said it was a shame that a handsome man like him should • be tied to a middle-aged creature like her. He asked why she had not written, and she replied that, not being able to write an affectionate letter, she had thought it better not to write at all. She asked if it was true that a girl of whom she had heard when she was in the Asylum, had borne him a child, and he evaded the question by saying he had made a fool of himself. She knew at this time the girl was in Sydney and her husband left her to go to Sydney. In May last witness returned home, but while her husband stopped at the house lie toqk little notice of her. He offered her £2 a week if she would go to Picton, Nelson, or tome other'pla ce where ho was never likely to see her. She said she did not see/ why , she should leave lien, .home*

sake of her children she would stay. ' During five months respondent only spent two evenings at home, and never came home until 5 o’clock in the morning. In the room he occupied he displayed near his bod a velvet handkerchief satchel with the letter® “ Charlie, from Cherry ” worked upon it- He wore a silk handkerchief bearing similar words, and he had a fancy picture book (produced) also containing an inscription “To Charlie, from Cherry.” While they were in Melbourne she accused him of carrying on with a married woman. He admitted that Cherry had lived with him a week, but had since got married and was now living at the Cape. She questioned him concerning his relations with another woman, and he said he had been charged with the paternity of her child, and had therefore paid her expenses to England. He was accustomed to display .in his room half-nude photos. He was accustomed also to brag to- her of the girls whom he had “ fooled.” Since her return to Wellington she had been under the doctor’s care, but had not been improving. She had done her best to make her home comfortable to her husband. Whenever she spoke nicely to him he would say, “Oh, I don’t want that sort of rubbish; I don’t care for it.” If she worked a cushion he would pitch it away and say that was the sort of thing one saw in a wayside pub. If she sang he would say her voice irritated him and he would slam down the piano. All this had tended to make her unhappy, had rendered her nervous and had injured her health. Replying to a question by Mr Jellicoe, witness said she had a temper, and she had had a great deal to provoke her. Evidence was also given by Mrs Daly, . who had acted as housekeeper for Long. She stated that Long had treated his wife very cooly. He had said he unshed she were dead, as he hated her. One night when Mrs Long was crying bitterly, witness asked him to say a few kind words to her. Long got up and walked out without speaking to his wife. If Long had treated his wife differently her health would have been very much better. In giving his decision, His Honor said there was clearly no desertion on the respondent’s part. He, however, thought the respondent had done wrong in endeavouring to live in the same house ad his wife under circumstances which made it impossible to avoid doing what apparently came under the definition of legal cruelty. If the wife had not suffered there would be no cruelty, but as she had suffered, and as it was within her husband’s knowledge, and he had continued-to live in the same house with her, continuing the same conduct, then he was guilty of what amounted to legal cruelty. The case was on the margin, but there was just sufficient to constitute legal cruelty. He granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. The respondent was ordered to pay costs. His Honor also made an order by consent for the wife to have the custody of one child.

In the Divorce Court on Monday a decree nisi was granted in the case Berg v. Berg, and the decree in the case Wigg v. Wigg was made absolute. Judge Williams reserved his decision in the case Rowe v. Rowe.