DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2181, 19 December 1895, Page 57

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL COURT.

Thursday, December 12. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) ELLEN DUNN V. JAMES DUNN. A wife s petition for judicial separation. Mr Mouab appeared for the petitioner, and Mr J. F. M. Fraser for the respondent. Mr Monat said that the petition was based on the grounds of cruelty and adultery with one Sl&rion or Mary Morgan, a domestic servant. A supplementary petition alleged that since Match of the present year these parties had lived together. The answer to the petition denied these charger, and on the question of alimony set up an agreement under wbich the wife agreed to accept 10a a week and live apart. Hih Honor asked what abaub the answer to the supplementary pe'ition, ~ Mr Prseer said that the witness on wbom he relttd iv support of the auswer was too ill to appear; therefore, having no evidence, he Mould withdraw the a< s vt r, and would rest content to cross-examine petitioner as to conduct". \ r Mr Blcuat said the patties were married by '--DrStuaifcon the .Ist Jabuary 1876, and lived happil/till they met Miss RlorgMi. She was ■ from Oam&ra, and being without friends and in delicate health the Dunns invited her to their place for three months. She then went to service at St. CUir, where Dunn visited her occ.tsk ntlly to take her letters; but after a while Mrs Dunn thought her husband was going to St. Clair too often, and she spoke to him about it, saying that people would be talking. He said be did not care ; that the girl had no friends, and that he would nob stop away. Mrs Dunn, did not, however, know that r there was at that time any impropriety betweeri the parties, nor did she say so now. About the beginning of February 1893 Mrs Dunn on returning from a visit to O-imaru found no one at home, and when Dunn arrived he told her that Miss Morgan had been there and mide tea, and that he had been Beting her home. Thfy were then living in Clarke street. One evening Dunn a<jked his wife to go to the kUt'bcn to fetch his tobacco, and she fourd in bis pecket a leltec fi\in Mies Morgau — a letter •which no young lady ought to have wiitten. [Letter handed to the judge ] ' Mrs Dunn did not mention to her husbaud anything about the letter at the time, as he was suffering from the effects of drink. The next thing he did was to break up the home and insist on their going to a boarding house. He said that his wife was incompetent to manage. Fiona thab time his conduct towards his wife became more proDouuced. He' openly treated her with contempt, and used to take Miss Morgan to all kii.ds of festivities. He was always trying to bully her into going to Melbourne. One night he left the house to go, as ho said, to a meeting of coursing men. Mrs Dunn went out to a friend's in St. David ktreet. On her way home she mob Dunn, and, going a little further, she also saw 'Miss Morgan. Ste spoke to him about the girl and be struck her in the face. Mrs Dunn then made up her miud to leave him as soon as pon-iole, and had taken a housekeeper's place at T«.ponui when she had to give it up and return to look after her husband, who at the time w*» very bad. Then she took a boarding . house, but, te : ng in ill-hoakb, failed to make ends meet, and, acting on the advice of friends, she wrote to her husband on May 28, 1894-, ■aying she would take 10a a week and live 1 apart. He agreed to the terms and had made the payments, but Mrs Dunn could not live on the 10s. Mrs Dunn knew nothing further person- • ally of misconduct, bub he (Mr Mouat) had in his band a certificate of the registration of the birth if a child on December 15, 1891, the father being James Dunn and the mother Mary Morgan. Mr Fraser intimated that he would not oppose judicial separation, and suggested that hi-, learned. friend should confine himself to the question of alimony. He would permit the xixht of the petitioner to a judicial separation. His Honor granted a decree of judicial Beparaion, and it was agreed by both counsel thab the petitioner should at once move for allotment of alimony. His Honor said the act no more prevented an allovrauca of alimony than it pecvented a tracer getting judgment against a wages m- n. Mr Mouab then addressed the court on the question of alimony, suggesting that the sum of 30s a* week would not be too much to allow. Ellen Dunn, the petitioner, deposed that ebe had i-either means nor property, and thab her health was bad. When she left ■ her husband the tried to get a situation, but failed, ow'ng to htr having a husband living. She then t< ok a boarding house, and kept it for more than 12 months, with the result thab she was left very considerably in' debt. Tha sum of 10s a week was quite insufficient for her. Her. husband had earned £4- a week for a considerable time. She was now depending to a large extent on the charity of her friends. Oi os examined by Mr Fraser, witness said eh 3 got money from her husband to go to Oam&ru and htd taken a boarding house. 'She didnot tell hrr husband she was leaving him. . She had left him because of his cruelty. Her husband had" struck her dtliberatt-ly on the head several times. *They had not lived unhappily until Mi=s Morgan appeared on the scene. She was of strictly temperate habits. Mr Fraser proposed to cross-exntnine with 1b.9 \iew of showing that punitive damages should not be allowed— to show thab the wife w:=s nob blameless. His Honor held thab ib was nob necessary to .go into this evidence; alimony was nob ordinatily punitive. Mr Fr&eer, in addressing the court, mentioned that the adultery was alleged oce year •tci> early, bub thab was not material. The petitioner bad left her husband, and of her own instf nee had agreed to certain alimony. The respondent was the sole support of his mother, and hud also to provide for the child, and by working very hard was able to earn £3 10s per w^k. Juuies Dunn, the respondent, gave evidence thab worlrug as an ordinary compositor he ■wou'd make £3 per week ; by working at high pressure and long hours he could make about £3 10s. He had an invalid mother to support.. His wife left him of her own motion. He had kept the child mentioned iv the evidence, and | Iras a few pounds in debt. j Ci ose-examined, witness said that Mary Morgan, the mother of his child, lived in his house and had done so for 12 months, bub received neither wages nor clobhes. Ho denied thai th< ra was any futbher relationship. His Honor, in giving judgment, said : Ther« is no good in making an order for too large a sum, because probably ib would not be paid. I think, also, that in considering the amount the obligation of the respondent to keep his mother ought to be taken into consideration, though, of course, his obligation in respect to his illegitimate child is altogether beside the question. I think, looking at these circumstances, the fact that the respondent will have out of his earnings to pay the cost of this suit a guinea a week |s » reasonable allowance.— Deoree. for jadfcial

separation, with costs; order for permanent alimony one guinea per week. BLIZA. JANE M'OBKGOR V. CHARLES STEWAHT M'GHEGOR. A wife's petition for judicial separation. The Hon. J. MacGregor appeared for the petitioner,- and the respondent did not appear either personally or by counsel. Eliza Jane M'Gregor, petitioner, said that the marriage took place in Christchurcb, the Rev. W. Dinwiddie baing the minister. The marriage was on the 28th Decemb r 1863. She had not seen her husband since 1888, but had letters from her husband while he was away. He said he was not in a position to keep her in a borne, and she lived with her father till his death in March Jagfc. Her father kept her all the time. From 1890 she heard nothing of her husband until September of Ebia year, after the present proceedings commenced. There was net'er any falling out. He waß just a " ne'er-do-well." His Honor granted a decree and an order giving petitioner the custody of the child. This concluded the business.