SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 930, 25 September 1869, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, 20fclr September. (Before His Honour Mi? Justice Ward.) A DIVOKOB OABB. JESSEP V. JUBSEP AND NICHOLSON^:— This was a suit instituted by the petitioner, Charles Jessep, for a decree dissolving his marriage with the respondent, Amalie Jessep, on the ground of her adultery -with the co-respondent, Charles Nicholson. Mr J. H. Harris appeared for the petitioner, and Mr W. W. Wilson- for the co-respondent. The petitioner, until latterly, had been engaged in different parts of the province, mining and shepherding, and the corespondent is a storekeeper and hotelkeeper at Moa Flat. The co-respondent denied the ground of the petition. Mr Wilson intimated that the plea of "Not Guilty" of ihe charge, although it had not been erased from the records of tfie Court, had been virtually withdrawn. The matter therefore came before the Court as an undefended case. Mr Harris said that if the Court had no objection to the withdrawal of the answer of the co-respondent, he could himself have none. He then explained that the petitioner was present in Court, and that the petition shewed that he was lawfully married to the above-named respondent on the 18th September, 1862, at the Lutheran Church, East Melbourne, Victoria. That immediately afterwards the petitioner lived and cohabited with her at the Temperance Hotel, Lonsdale street, Melbourne, for about two weeks, and from thence they went to Dunolly's Creek, Gipps Land, Victoria, where the petitioner and respondent lived together until February, 1863. That about that period the petitioner left Dunolly's Creek with the intention of coming to New Zealand, the respondent remaining at Woodside, Gipps Land, with Elizabeth Gasson, the petitioner's sister, with the understanding that the petitioner should send for her as soon as he got settled in New Zealand. The petitioner arrived in Dunedin on or about the 10th March, 1863, and in November, 1863, he wrote requesting the respondent to join him, providing her with sufficient money to enable her to do so. The respondent arrivad in Dunedin in January, 1864. They lived together at Miller's Flat, Otago, until the 9th July, 1864. During apart of the time the respondent at her own desire cooked victuals for the co-respondent and his copartner, who resided in a house adjoining the house of the petitioner, and she was frequently in the house of the co-respon-dent, alone with him. That on or about the said 9th July, 1864, the petitioner, on going into his dwelling house at Miller's Flat, saw the respondent and the corespondent together in a bedroom, sitting on the side of the bed, the respondent's hair being in a disordered state ; that about the 10th July, 1864, the respondent requested the petitioner to allow her to go to a ball with the co-respondent, but he refused to allow her to do so ; the respondent thereupon expressed her dotermination to go to the ball, although the petitioner earnestly requested her not to do so. The respondent thereupon went to the house of the corespondent at Miller's Flat ; and subsequently, on the pstitioner going to the house of the corespondent, he saw her and the co-reßpondent together in the bed-room of the co-respondent. From the last mentioned time the petitioner had not lived or cohabited with the respondent ; but the respondent and co-respondent had since been living and cohabiting together at Miller's Flat. Since the 10th July, 1864, three children hud been born, of which the respondent was the mother. Mr Harris then explained that the petitioner and his wife had no issue ; that the citation to the respondent and co-respondent to appear hau boon duly served upon them. The co>respondent appeared by his solicitor, Mr Wilson, but the respondent had not appeared. The following were the issues : — ■" I. Whether the petitioner, Charles Jessop, wts, on or about the 18th day of Sept. , 1863, lawfully married to Ainalxe Je«nep, the respondent. 2. Whether Amaho Jessep, tho respondent^ committed adultery with Charles Nicholson, the corespondent. 3. Whother the said petitioner hau condoned tho adultery oommitted by tho said respondent (if any)." Tho learnod counsel thon handed in a copy of the certificate of tho marriago, obtained from the oflico of tho RogintrarGeneral in Melboumo, and signed by Wilhelm Mau, who was present at tho nmrriaßO, and said he proposed to provo that it was an Attested copy of tho official register, and one which the law required to bo kopt Be thon called, Mr E. flf. Ward, solicitor of tho Supreme Court of Viotoria and Now Zealand, who •tated that under the 10th Viet., aoontod to in January, 1803, the Bagistrar-Generftl wm appointed tho ooxtaUftn of such oor>

tificates. He referred to the RegistrarGeneral of Births, Deaths, and Marriages. 'Mr Harris Handed in the affidavit of Wilhelm Mau, '98 Lonsdale eitreet 1 ,Wekfi,' who witnessed the , marriage , of the petitioner and the respondent ; and the learned counsel then said that the next step necessary for him to take, would be to identify f as far as identification could take place, the, parties named in the certificate ef marriage with the petitioner and respondent. He would therefore now proceed to give further evidence as to identity. He called, James Thompson, who said : lam manager for Mr Walter Miller, of Miller's Flat. I have been living at Miller's Flat for the last 11 or 12 years, and am well acquainted with nearly everybody in the district. There are not many persons living there now. I know Charles Jessep, the petitioner; he was in the seryioe of Mr Miller. He came to Mr Miller's about January, 1864, and remained there for about three months. He afterwards went to reside in a cottage alongside the river ; the cottage was next door to the store of the co-respondent, Nicholson. The petitioner was then living with Mrs Jessep j they always appeared to mo to be living happily together. I never heard Mrs 1 Jessep complain that her husband had ill-treated her. Shortly after the petitioner left the station he left the district and did not return. His wife has since been living with the co-respondent. She is known in the neighbourhood as Mrs Nicholson. There are three children in Nicholson's house. The eldest is about five years old, and the youngest about twelve months. The respondent told me that she was the mother of the children, and that Nicholson was the father.

Duncan M'Crae, a shepherd, in the employ of Messrs Miller and Henderson, gave corroborative evidence ; as also did Charles Golding. The latter seated that he had resided at Nicholson's house for some time, and he was aware that Nicholson and the respondent occupied the Bame bedroom.

His Honour expressed an opinion that the identification of the parties was not complete, whereupon ' Mr Harris said he would'call the petitioner to clear up the point. Charles Jessep then gave evidence as to his marriage with Amalie Koch, a native of Hanover, and their subsequent arrival in New Zealand.

His Honour said the marriage and adultery had been fully proved. He would, however, have to consider whether he had jurisdiction to grant a decree nisi. At the present time he entertained some doubt upon the point. Mr Harris asked whether His Honour would direct that the evidence of the witnesses should be taken on affidavit, so that there might be no difficulty in bringing the matter before the Court of Appeal. He believed that some of the witnesses were so situated that they would be unable to attend in Wellington.

His Honour said the application could be made in Chambers.