DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 6272, 19 May 1881, Page 5

DIVORCE COURT.

Wednesday, May 18.

(Before their Honors the Chief Justice, and Justices Johnston and Gillies.) HILL V. HILL.

This case was continued, the following addi tional evidence being taken ;

George Hand, printer, deposed that, in conversation, the respondent had told him (witness) that Mrs. Hill had heard_ something supposed to be detrimental to his (Hill’s) moral character, and requested him to try and arrange a reconciliation ; and on his speaking to Mrs. Hill as requested, she had told him to mind his own business. He bad spoken to the petitioner a second time on Hill’s behalf without success.

Ada Martha Hill, 11 years of age, was called, but her evidence was not considered necessary. Sergeant Keady stated in respect to Mrs. Chitsey, that she was known to be a prostitute in 1877 and 1878. This concluded the case for the petitioner. Mr. Hutchison, on behalf of the respondent, said the case was a painful one for all parties, but it would he necessary for the purpose of rebutting the evidence on the other side to state facts of a particularly unpleasant nature. His client had for the last three years labored under misrepresentation and calumny brought ou by by shop gossips and retailed over the city for the purpose of prejudicing respondent in the public mind. He hoped to disprove conclusively the evidence given on behalf of the petitioner.

John Hill, the respondent, said he was a bootmaker by trade. He arrived in Wellington eighteen years ago. He was at one time in the Defence Force stationed at New Plymouth. At the time of his marrying petitioner he was in business as bootmaker at the Taita. She occasionally taught music there. He had never illtreated his wife either before or after their first child was born. They afterwards removed to Wainuiomata, He was earning £2 per week then, out of which he paid all the household accounts. The girl Prouse attended their house to receive music lessons. He was never guilty of adultery with her. Her father did not charge him with the offence, although he was once assaulted by Mr. Prouse, for which ha was bound over to keep the peace. Mrs. Hill was confined at Wainui. He denied having ill-treated her. She applied to the Magistrate’s Court for a protection order in 1878. When they were residing in Cubastreet he purchased an express out of the proceeds received by the sale of their piano, which was sold at his wife’s request. The statement that he had thrown a bucket of cold water over her while she was lying ill in bed, was untrue. He left Cuha-street, and opened a tobacconist shop at Brandon’s corner. The stock was purchased with money received from the sale of the express, some land, and a balance of cash in hand. The takings in the shop averaged from £lO to £l2 per week. Was acquainted with the woman called German Maria, who stayed two days and nights in their house, it was his wife who first suggested to him to take the woman for a pull in the harbor. On his returning, Mrs. Hill remarked she had heard German Maria was a had character, but that she considered her a very decent young woman. She remained three nights. By Judge Johnston ; I am not positive whether it was two or three nights. My wife offered no objection to the woman staying in the house the first two nights. I deny having had close intimacy with her, or Jessie Parker, or with Mrs. Chitsey.

By Judge Johnston : I can swear that X did not commit an act of adultery with Mrs. Chitsey. He was advised by his wife to go on a visit to his friends in Melbourne. On one occasion she appeared to be jealous, and spoke about a child, but had satisfied herself the statement was untrue. He was not spoken to about a deed of separation ; the evidence given concerning it was utterly false. He had neither read it nor heard it read. When he was leaving for Melbourne, John Gell came down to the wharf with a paper for him to sign, and said it required his signature to enable his wife to carry on the business during his absence. He attached his name without knowing what the document contained. When he was leaving for Melbourne himself and wife parted on good terms. She kissed and embraced him. Three months later on his return he went to their house early in the morning. There was no one within. On gaining admission he found a bundle of letters from a man named Magill, and a nhotograph. His wife afterwards snatched the letters from him and destroyed them. The same evening she told him that she had obtained a deed ot separation, and had promised to have no more to do with him, stating at the same time that it was not her doing, bat under advice from her friends, and offered if he would go away to break the deed of separation, sell off, and go to Christchurch with him. He refused, and was thereupon ordered out of the house. His wife at the same time commenced to scream “ murder” and “ police.” She left the house by the window, being assisted by someone on the outside. The following day he received a summons from her for maintenance. On one occasion, about a month after his return from Melbourne, he saw a man leaving his wife’s bedroom. She was in deshabille. It was between 7 and Bin the morning. He asked her what Hunter was doing there, and she replied that he had called for a box. Respondent made no further remark, but left the house. He afterwards obtained legal advice at Gisborne, and on his return to Wellington went and took possession of the shop. His wife and Hunter were present, and respondent put Hunter outside, for which act he was summoned and fined. After a short visit to the Wairarapa his wife, on his return, about December, 1878, kissed him, asked his forgiveness, and stated that it was not her doing. He remained with her all that night. The next morning she again quarrelled with him without apparent cause, and ordered him to leave the house.

Mr. OUivier subjected the respondent to a s evere cross-examination.

Mrs. Barnett (who was referred to as Mrs. Chitsey) on being sworn, denied that she ever committed adultery with the respondent. She was a daughter of Captain Baker, K.N. Her previous husband's name was Chitsey, but she was engaged to her present husband ten years before she married him. She was engaged to him in England and came out to New Zealand to find him, and was now living happily with him. She denied the statement given in Court by the witness Hunter as to her intimacy with respondent. This concluded the case. His Honor the Chief Justice said that he believed the tale of the respondent to be a tissue ot falsehoods from beginning to end. His conduct during his married life had been utterly degrading and unworthy of a man. His Honor Justice Johnston said be perfectly concurred with the remarks ot the Chief Justice. He thought that the tale told by the petitioner was given in a very straight-forward manner, and was a plain credible story. The respondent was a man, he considered, who had perjured himself, a bold liar, and an experienced one, and who had been trying all means in his

power to avoid laying himself open to prosecution. . Hia Honor Justice Gillies said he entirely agreed with his brother Judges, and characterised the tale of the respondent as being utterly regardless of truth. A decree nisi was granted in the usual terms.