SUPREME COURT.-DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7001, 24 July 1884, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.-DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.

Wednesday, Joly 23.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) CABL KLiiGLKIN V. ANNIE KLiiGLEIJf AND

FRANK 3IABTIN. lhis was a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery between the respondent and corespondent.

Mr Solomon appeared for the petitioner JNo appearance wa3 made- on behalf of the other parties. The petition set forth that the petitioner and the respondent were mariied at Hobart in 18<2, and lived together until May 1875, when the respondent left her husband. . The petitioner sought a dissolution of the marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery with persons unknown and with the co-respondent The petitioner, a bootmaker at InvercareilL stated that he and his wife lived for some time after their marriage ab Hobart,~afterwards at Chnstchurch, and finally removed tb Dunedin His wife took to drinking, and in April 187 ci left him. With the help of a de" tective he found her in a house of ill-fame in btuart stroet, and took her home with him where she remained until May 1875, when she again left him. She then went to a house in liope street, Dunedin, and frequented- the theatres at night. Witness went to Invercargill, where he had remained ever since. He Hr ß t spoke to Mr Batbgate with the view ef getting a cuvorca, but £S0 was wanted, and he had not sufhcient_ money. He had since consulted other solicitors, and had given Mr Stout instructions to get a divorce last January twelvemonth. He was theu told, however, that there was insufficient evidenco. As soon as ha was in a position to do so he took procsedings. ljast January twelvemonth, when witness was in JJunedio, he saw his wife, who was liviDg in -Hope street in a house with four or fivo other women. One child was stillborn at Hobart by witness marriage, and.one born in 1874 waa alive now.

To ms Honor: Witness last aaw the respondent in January ISS3, when she was in llope street. He had not lived with her since May 1870. bhe sent him a letter to Invercargill, and it was partly in consequence of that that he went and saw her in Hope street. J.nere was no arrangement between them to get a divorce, and since then he had had no written or verbal communication with her. Michael Phelan, bailiff, gave evidence that he served tha citation upon the respondent. He knew her by the name of Annie Thompson, and had ejected her from a house of ill-repute in Hope street, about last February twelvemonth.

Caroline Moore knew the co-respondent, and was aservant in his house at Grosvenor street. liensington, about two months ago. He lived with his •' missis," whom witness first knew in Hope street as Annie Thompson. They lived aa man and wife.

Michael Phelan, recalled, said that he knew the co-respondent, who was ia Court. B. *S. Carlton, storekeeper, stated that the respondent bad purchased goods from him in the name of Martin.

Theresa Poppleton stated that she lived in a house in Hope Btreet in the early part of last year, and knew a woman named Annie Thompson who lived there. She also knew her by the name of Mrs Kliiglein. The co-respon-dent, Irank Martin, visited tha house in order to see Anniß Thompson. Witness knew that the latter was now living in Grosvenor street, Ivensmgton. His Honor said he thought a case bad been made out for a decree nisi, but not for costs against the co-respondent. Mr Solomon said he did not think the circumstances were such as to entitle him to costs against the co-respondent. His Honor : I think the adultery is satisfactorily proved. The only point seems to be the delay m taking proceedings, but that appears to be reasonably explained. It struck me at first, with regard to the letter from the respondent, thct there might have been collusion, but I think not. A decree nisi is granted.