DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL COURT. Tuesday, November 26.

Otago Witness, Issue 2179, 28 November 1895, Page 35

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL COURT. Tuesday, November 26.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) ?OHN DUNCAN BISSET (PETITIONER) V. ELIZABETH BISSKT (RESPONDENT) AND EOJ.AND FLETCHER (CO-BESPONDENT). Petition for dissolution of marriage. . This case was partly heard some ruontbs since, when the petitioner gave evidence, and the case was adjourned for the production of further evidence. Mr Allan Holmes, who appeared for the petitioner, said that the evidence taken at tbe previous eit'.ing showed that the parties were married in Osmata in 1887, and that they lived on good terms till August 1089, when the w ife left her husband and csme to Dunedin, where ahe had lived for some 5 eats, and, when living apart, from her husband, had committed adultery. The protection order obtained by the wifo had been based ou the ground of crue'ly. A defence had beea made to that application, and a great many witnesses had been called on both sides ; but though the cruelty wts denied, they could nob get over ihe fact that the order had been made. The learned counsel, however, submitted on the authority of cases cited that cruelty was not a bar unless it was conducive to the adultery. Evidence was thenc*lled, Beatrice Elizabeth Garrett giving evidence as to the respondent procuring intoxicants ; but stating that she had never seen the respondent the worse for drink, and hsd never witnessed any quarrelling or ill treMm'nfc. Dr Joffcoat gave evidence that when he attended 1h» leipondent he found the corespondent livirjg in the same house with her, and that she subsequently stated that the co-resprndenfc was the father of her child. His Honor, in giving judgment, said : The positioa of the parties was exactly the same as if t-iay bad been judicially separated, and the husband offered to pay alimony. Even in eucb. a case if some time after the judicial separation the wife, without any furthir provocation apd having received her alimony regularly, commits adultery, th« husband is entitled to relief, even though he may have been originally in fau't, and she may have obtained tbe judicial separation on the grounds of his prior mie conduct. Unless there was some exceptional circametance in the case the husband would not be disentitled to relief on account of his previous misconducb. That appears to bare been decided in the case Badham v. Badham and Qorst, and in the later case SergeaDt v. Sergeant and Weaver to the same c-fftci. Decree nisi granted, with leave to move at the first sitting after the expiration of three months.