DIVORCE CASES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2106, 5 July 1894, Page 23

DIVORCE CASES.

At the Supreme Court, Auckland, before Mr Justice Conolly, a petition for divorce was heard. The petitioner sought a divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery. William Montgomery Gossett, of Remuera, clerk, was the petitioner, Annie Venetia Gossett the respondent, and George Brown, bush contractor, Coromandel, the co-respondent. Respondent and co-respondent did not appear. After evidence had been taken, his Honor granted a decree nisi, but as the petitioner had the children in his custody them was no need to make an order in that respect. No costs were allowed. Auckland, June 29. The Supreme Court was occupied to-day with the divorce c&Be of Kempthorne v. Kempthorne. The petitioner, Orlando Inman Kempthorne, a wholesale chemist and druggist, asked for a decree nisi for the dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of his wife's alleged adultery. The parties were married at Wellington on October 7, 1886, and lived together until March 1889, when, it was alleged, the wife took bo drink, and a legal separation then took place. Petitioner said that his wife had been fined for drunkenness in Dunedin, and had threatened hie life by putting a knife acrcis hin throat *"bon lis r^?- s > r.a'fcejn Evidence w< #/*'en ''<j a

i j boarding-house servant and a boarder that Mrd Kompthorne and co-respondent occupied the same bedroom. The respondent said she did not want a divorce, and denied the adultery. She had merely nursed Rogers, who was ill. The jury found respondent guilby of adultery with the co-respondent, Rogers, and his Honor grauted a decree nisi. la the case of Charles William Bannister (petitioner) v. Annie Maria Bannister (respondent) and Alfred Percy Furbor (co-respondent), Mr Cooper moved that the decree nisi granting dissolution- of marriage be made absolute herein. The order was made. Napier, June 29. The divorce case Sheath v. Sheath was commenced at the Supreme Court to-day and will last some days. The wife petitions for divorce on the ground of her husband's cruelty and misconduct with several single women. Respondent is a well-known solicitor. The parties were married in Christchurch in 1877, and lived toge;her until about two years ago, when they separated. The wife alleges that the husband contracted habits of intemperance, and struck and otherwise ill-treated her.