DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 7222, 18 July 1884, Page 7

DIVORCE COURT.

Thursday, July 3. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) ORAIG V. CRAIG. William Alison Craig, gardener, of the Hutt, applied for a dissolution of his marriage with Charlotte Craig, on the ground of adultery. Mr E. Shaw appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Buckley for the respondent.^ Counsel for the petitioner briefly stated his case. Petitioner was married to Charlotte Milton, spinster, at St Peter’s Church, Wellington, in July, 1869. Seven children resulted from this marriage. The parties, however, did not live happily together, and a number of disputes culminated at last iu a separation order being granted several years noo. Tho petitioner had not visited his wife since h'cbrnary, 1833, but iu May last she was delivered of a child. The allegation was that tho respondent had committed adultery with some p-rion or persons unknown. He called the following evidence ; Andrew Alison Craig tbe petitioner, deposed that ho was married iu July, 1869, to Charlotte Wilton, at St Peter’s Church Wellington. Seven children resulted from the marriage, throe of whom were dead. Since the granting of the separation order some years ago, had not lived with his wife. Visited his wife on tho 24th February, 1883, at her house in Haining-street, and did not see her again till last month. Last had connection with her six years ago. Did not know who was the father of the child of which his wife was delivered in May last. Cross-examined : The reason the separation order was granted was because ids wife would not come aud live with him in conseuuence of a report that he (petitioner) was cohabiting with another woman, who ban been left in the house to look after tho children. Was charged before Mr Manstord, then Resident Magistrate, tor neglecting his wife. Witness would not have her back at the house. Previous to this bis wife was at the Hospital, where she remained for nearly two years. Paid £ls into the Hospital for his wife’s maintenance. After this tho protection order was granted. Ho would swear positively that lie never committed adultery with Miss Clara Jones, who was looking after the children. Tho day after his wife went into the Hospital (in July, 1878), ho bought a large mattrass, upon which Miss J ones and some of the children slept. When petitioner was employed by Dr Hector, in 1883, Mias Jones lived in the same house with him. There were no children there, Mrs Craig having them at that time. For soma time after respondent came out of the Hospital she had the whole of the children. Could not say that ha had kept the paymeutsup under the protection order regularly. Paid Miss Jones 10s a week, hut if he had not got the money she had to go without. His eldest child, Amy Elizabeth, was fourteen years of age. She never brought tea to him and Miss Jones iu bed. Re-examined : The eldest girl is now living with her mother, who, on her own application, has all the children. Mias Jones left my employ about a month ago. His Honor asked the petitioner why he had retained Miss Jones in his service when there were no children in the house ? Petitioner : I wanted someone to do my washing and cooking, and so on. His Honor : Is it not rather an expensive thing for a single man to keep a housekeeper at 10s a week.

Petitioner : I don’t know ; I struggled to doit, and when I had no money Mies Jones had to go without. Kate Oliver, midwife, residing in Hainingstreet, deposed that on the 6th May last Mrs Craig gave birth to a child, which was now alive! Cross-examined : Mrs Craig bore a good character in the neighborhood ns a hard-working and well-conducted woman, Mrs Craig had six children now. (Mr Shaw here explained that cue child had been born previous to tho marriage.) Witness continued : Mrs Craig had no rent to pay, and received 10s a week from her husband at times. That money was not paid regularly. Petitioner, re-called, said the child born pre-

vious to marriage was not his. By his Honor : Refused to Cake my wife back after she came out of tho hospital, because she had spread damaging reports about Miss Jones and me. This closed the case (or the petitioner. Charlotte Craig, the respondent, deposed that she was delivered of a child in May last, of which Craig (the petitioner) was the father. He had connection with her when he visited her in September last. Went into the hospital in July, 1879, and remained there for nearly two years. When she went home after leaving the hospital, her husband went out with Clara Jones, and stayed away all night, returning, in company with Miss Jones, the following morning. Miss Jones said she had more right there than witness. She accordingly left the place and took out the protection order. Craig did not pay the maintenance money under that order regularly. Did not commit adnltery with anyone since her marriage with Craig. Cross-examined : Her husbaud acknowledged to her while she was in the hospital, that he was living with Miss Jones as his wife. Her son, who was now at sea, was present when her husband visited her in September. Could not say that Miss Jones was good looking—opinions differed. Amy Elizabeth Craig, li years of age, deposed that at the time her mother was in the hospital she was away with her father at Berhampore. Witness took the breakfast to her father, who was in bed with Miss Jones. Six months afterwards they left that place, and during that time Miss Jones slept with her father. Miss Jones told witness’ brothers to call her mother. When they lived subsequently at Newtown, Wadestown, and Karori, her father and Miss Jones always slept together. Cross-examined : Witness had a brother older than herself, who was employed on a steamer. He was expected in Wellington that day. He was about 17 years of age, and had lived with the family at Karori. By His Honor : When witness’ mother came home from the hospital there were some words about Miss Jones being in the house. Her father and Miss Jones went oat, and returned the following cay. Mr Shaw, in addressing the Court, commented upon the absence of any independent testimony as to the alleged cohabitation of petitioner with Miss Jones. The respondent never brought the birth of the child under the notice of her husband ; did not even register it until after the petition had been received. His Honor said the case was one in which the evidence was not satisfactory on either side. As regarded the principal question—that of the adultery of the wife—there was equal evidence on either side. The circumstances of the case, together with the busband’s distinct denial of access, would no doubt have proved the adultery, but these were met by a positive assertion on the part of

tho respondeat t-f ncc-.w. That b- ing so, he felt-hlig-d 1- thA, in his njii.ion, thpetitioner hr. i foiled la relievo himself of ti-.e aims of proof thus cast r.pon him. T..!:i into consideration the remarkable circumstances of the case, he might ’nave found it advisable, even had the adultery been proved, to refuse the petition. However, he wished to say as little on that head as possible, A very strong circumstance, a uuo-t the i> litiouer was the fact that h** had liv, d with the girl Jones for two years when there were no children in the house, and Miss Jones attendance was consequently not necessary- This, which was shown from the petitioner's own evidence, was no doubt a ground of very strong susuiciou against Craig, for tiiere was no possible ground for his retaining her services after Urn children were gone. Of course, if credent-- were to he given "to the evidence of the daughter, which bad been given very clearly, tin* ca-e would ho ended at once; but that evidence was weakened by the fact that the brother, win. was older, had n-t been called. He had thought it would he desirable to adjourn tho ca-e, but, on the whole, be though there was no necessity for this course. The petitioner in this case had failed to relieve himself of the onus of proof, and there would be no decree.

Mr Buckley applied for and was grantee coits. The Court then adjourned till Wed neslay.