Monday, August 7. HILTON v. HILTON.

Otago Witness, Issue 2371, 10 August 1899, Page 19

Monday, August 7. HILTON v. HILTON.

Suit for dissolution of marriage. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the petitioner, Charles Hilton. There was no appearance of the respondent, Margaret Hilton. It appeared from the statements made by counsel, and the evidence given by the petitioner that the petitioner, who was a groom, was married in February, 1891, to Margaret Fraser, a spinster, then in service at Roslyn. The marriage took place at Knox Church. The parties resided in Maclaggan street for three or four months. The petitioner then got a situation at Clinton, where he took his wife to live. In April of 1892, she complained of illness, and c-aine to Dunedin with the intention of receiving medical treatment at the hospital. Three or four days aftecwards petitioner -heard that his wife, instead of going to the hospital, had gone to stay with her mother, who was keeping ft house of ill fame in Moray place. He thereupon came to town, found his wife at the house in question, ynd tried to induce her to go back to Clinton with him. She, however, refused to go, and he returned home alone. A few months afterwards he met her in town and tried to persuade her to go home with him, but she again refused to have anything to do with him. Since '..hen she had been convicted of drunkenness, and also sent to gaol for vagrancy. Sometimes when she was drunk she enme to where Hilton was employed and made a tscene, and he had twice lost his situation on her account. At the time that he married the respondent petitioner was not aware that her mother kept a house of ill-fame. Evidence was given by the petitioner and Detective Cooney,- after which His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months.