DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 6273, 20 May 1881, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

Thubsbay, May 19. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, and Justices Johnston and Gillies.) MUDGWAY V. MUDGWAY. Mr. Ollivier appeared for petitioner. The respondent did not appear. The evidence went to show that the petitioner was, at the age of 18, married to the respondent, Richard Mudgway, at Wellington, on the Ist of August, 1876. They resided at Johnsouville, but, in consequence of re-poud-ent’s misconduct and cruelty, she left him, and returned to Wellington, where she has supported herself. Since separating from her rusband. he had been living with a Mrs. Cooley, at Ohariu, by whom he had a child. A decree nisi granted on the usual terms. WILSON V. WILSON. Mr. Hutchison appeared for the petitioner. Respondent did not appear. Thomas Wilson, the petitioner, stated that he married respondent in 1879. That after he had been married a year respondeat gave way to intemperate habits, and had latterly cohabited with a man named Cooper. Thomas Barston stated that he knew a man named Cooper. Respondent was cohabiting with him at Newtown. A decree nisi was granted under the usual terms. HEDLEY V. HEDLEY. Au application for a decree nisi. Mr. Travers appeared for the petitioner. The case had been heard before his Honor the Chief Justice. In answer to Mr. Justice Johnston, petitioner stated that there was no arrangement made between the petitioner and respondent whereby petitioner could get married again. No evidence was taken. A decree nisi was granted, the damages assessed by a jury, in January last, at £350, being ordered to be paid by the co-respondent.