SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 9318, 12 June 1891, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE COURT. Thursday, June 11th. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) CEDERLUND V. CEDERLAND. A decree absolute and the custody of the children in this case was moved for by -Mr Menteath. On behalf of the respondent Mr Skerrett agreed to a decree absolute, but applied that the question of the custody of the children should be aijourned for a week. His Honor made the rule nisi absolute, and adjourned the question of the custody of the children till Saturday.

GODDEN V. GODDEN. On the motion of Mr Skerrett the decree nisi in this case was made absolute. The petition was on the part of the wife. BOBS V. BURN. Mr Jellicoo on behalf of the petitioner announced that this case, in which the wife had sought for a dissolution of marriage, had been settled, and he therefore withdrew the petition, JAMIESON V. JAMIESON. This was a motion by Annie Jamieson for the dissolution of her marriage with Joseph Jamieson, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Mr Skerrett appeared for the petitioner and Mr Jellicoe for the respondent. In opening the case, Mr Skerrett stated that the parties, who were married on November 10th, 1874, had lived in Wellington very happily until the latter end of 18SS, when the husband subjected his wife to considerable cruelty. He had endeavoured to throw his wife over the banisters and threatened that if she did not out of the house he would turn her out. On another occasion he had also treated her badly, and these acts ended in an net of separation. Besides these acts of cruelty it was alleged that the husband had committed adultery with a girl named Elizabeth Heely, by whom he had had a child, and had been introduced in Sydney aa her husband. The husband filed an answer to the charge, denying the cruelty and adultery, and relying upon the deed of separation as a condonemeat of the adultery. For th 3 respondent, it was contended by Mr Jellicoe that these cases of cruelty and adultery having been condoned they could not be revived. The covenant of the deed of separation in the present case precluded all farther action on the part of the wife in the Courts of Law.

Mr Skerrett submitted that the covenant in the deed of separation, quoted by Mr Jellicoe, only referred to action in regard to alimony. It did not preclude further action on the part of the wife tor dissolution.

His Honor, in giving his decision, said that the covenant in t‘ie deed of separation referred to merely precluded Mrs Jamieson taking action in the Courts to obtain restitution of conjugal tights or cohabitation, &c, .He was of opinion that the matrimonial offences condoned by the deed could not be revived, though in this case there had been an alleged subsequent act of adultery. He must take the deed as condoning the acts of cruelty and adultery, and these could not be revived, Mrs Jamieson having bound herself to refrain from taking action on account of the said,Act. He must, under these circumstance, dismiss the petition. Mr Skerrett said he intended to move for judicial separation on the grounds of the subsequent act of adultery. Mr Jellicoe applied for the present petition to be settled at once, and cosls allowed. His Honor thought that the raking up of scandalous details could not be of advantage to either party, and could do no good to Mrs Jamieson. He was of opinion that the s question of costa might be amicably settled between the parties. Mr Jellicoe stated he was quite prepared to forego all costs, providing his learned friend undertook not to take any further action. Mr Skerrett said he was not prepared to enter into any such undertaking. He thought the question of coats might be reserved and brought before the Judge in Chambers. As to the motion for judicial separation he would be prepared to offer evidence in support of the cha»ge of adultery, Mr Jellicoe : We won’t ask for costa. Your Honor can dispose of the petition without costs.

• Mr Skerrett: I enter into no undertaking on my part. His Honor then dismissed the petition without costs.

The Court then adjourned till Saturday.