DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4890, 23 November 1876, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

"Wednesday, November 22. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Johnston, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Gillies.) The Court of Divorce sat as above at 11 o’clock. FOREST V. FOREST AND HATES. This was a husband’s petition for a dissolution of marriage. . Mr. Barton appeared for the petitioner, and applied for an adjournment until Friday, in order that he might .put in some evidence which was being taken by Commission in Dunedin, pursuant to an order of His Honor Mr. Justice Williams. The Bench intimated that the petitioner should have been ready with the evidence ; but as it appeared possible to adjourn, and they wished to make the Court as open as possible, they would assist Mr. Barton as far as practicable. His Honor the Chief Justice then said that the Court would at its rising adjourn until Wednesday next, when it would take any business which came properly before it, and Mr. Barton could then bring on his case. CANS V. CANS AND HOWARD. This was a husband’s petition for a dissolution of marriage. Mr. Bell appeared for the petitioner, who stated the case, read the evidence, all of which had been taken by Commission, with the exception of that of the petitioner. The petitioner was examined at length in support of his case, A decree nisi was granted in the usual form, STANLEY V. STANLEY. This was a wife’s petition for a dissolution of marriage. . . Mr. Stafford appeared for the petitioner, and after he had stated the facts, examined the petitioner at length in support of her case. Miss Ellen Donnelly and Mr.. John Staples were also examined. The further hearing of this case was adjourned until Wednesday, for Mr. Stafford to obtain ex parte evidence as to the marriage laws of Victoria. DYSON V. DYSON AND FORWARD. In this case a difficulty had arisen, owing to the copy of petition not having been served upon the Solicitor-General until four days after the original had been filed, in consequence of which it had been adjourned. Mr. Bell addressed the Court for the petitioner, arguing that it should not go behind to find error in the interlocutory proceedings, and dealing with other points of law which ar< Hk Honor the Chief Justice regretted that he could not concur in the judgment of the other members of the Court. Where a certain step was proscribed by a statute, and it "was brought to the notice of the Court, the Court was bound, even at the risk of treating the former proceedings as a nullity. After decree the objection might be curable, but at the present state of the proceedings he thought that the Court should see that the statute was carried out literally. He could not agree with the rest of the Court, His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston expressed contrary views. His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies drew a distinction between directory and mandatory provisions in statutes. In his opinion the words of the Act in the present case were merely directory, and he should concur With his

Honor Mr. Justice Johnston. His Honor Mr. Justice Williams expressed views similar to those of his Honor Mr. Justice Gillies. ... , A decree nisi was then granted m the usual form, and the Court adjourned until 11 o’clock on Wednesday, COURT OF APPEAL. The Court sat merely for purposes of adjournment, and will sit to-day at 11 o’clock.

The Bight Hon. G. C. Bentinek, Judge Advocate-General, takes an active part with the Whitehaven Odd Fellows. The Solway Lodge at Whitehaven is the largest in the world, numbering about 1000 members, and Mr. Bentinek is a member of this, as he is of almost every. friendly society in the town of Whitehaven, Lately Mrs. Bentinek arrived in Whitehaven and witnessed the grand procession, and Mr, Bentinek and Grand Master Geves, of Leeds; addressed the large assemblage. In the evening Mr. Bentinek presided at a large and enthusiastic meeting and proposed several toasts.