DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

Otago Witness, Issue 2425, 5 September 1900, Page 18

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

Friday, August 31. (Before Kis Honor Mr Justice "Williams.) VETCtIER V. VETCHEE. Suit for dissolution of marriage. In this previously-heard case, in which Isabella Vetcher prayed for a dissolution of marriage with. Arthur Yetcher, his Honor postponed pi oiiouncing a decree until an affidavif had been filed proving that the right man was seived with the writ of citation. Mr J. MacG-regor, who appeared for the petitioner, now stated that an additional affidavit had been filed, and Kis Honor said he had seen the affidavit. A decree nisi would be granted ; to be made absolute m three months.". MATHESON V. MATHESON AND M'l-IENZIE. Suit for dissolution of marriage. M.ii Solomon appeared 'for the petitioner, Donald Matheson. There was no appearance of the lespondent, Mais 7 Matheson, or of the corespondent, Alexander M'&enzie. Mr Solomon, in opening the case for the petitioner, said although defences and appearances had been filed on behalf^of the respondent and co-respondent, he had the tuithority o-f their representatives to say that the defence had been abandoned b5 r both parties. The circumstances of the case were these : The petitioner and his wife were married in Scotland, and they came to New Zealand and lived here for several years. The co-respondent M'TCenzie was a ins 11 that the petitioner and his wife had fciiown m Scotland; and after they came to New Zealand M'Kenzie went to lhe with them. TPov two or three years the petitioner had doubts abotit the relationship that existed between M'Kenzie and his wife, and oil two or three occasions he taxed her with familiarity and improper relations with M'Kenzie. She, however, denied the charge, and persuaded, her husband io believe in the truth of her statement. In July of last year, however, there was a great row between the husband and wife, and the lespondent, becoming desperate, admitted her intimacy with M'Kenzie, and said she would go with him again if she chose. Petitioner then, acting on the advice of counsel, turned his wife out of the house, and refused to have anything to do with her. She then applied to the stipendiary magistrate for an allowance to be made to her, and the petitioner defended the application on the ground that his wife had improperly committed herself. The magistrate allowed her a s-mall allowance, and she thereupon made an ' application to the Supreme Court for the restitution of conjugal rights. The matter was discussed before his « Honor, who refused to grant the application. I Proceedings were almost immediately pfter- J wards instituted for divorce, and although they } were defended at the time, the defence had subsequently been abandoned. He (counsel) thought there could be no doubt whatever that the defences were wisely abandoned, tieeause the case was a very clear one indeed, and it was difficult to see how the respondent and eolespondent could have resisted the evidence^ which would come before the court. Al thought* the defence had been abandoned, he'liad intimated to the representatives of the respondent and co-respondent that he would claim costs. Donald Matheson, the petitioner, deposed that he was married to the respondent in Argyleshire in November, 1885. He and his wife knew the co-respondent in Scotland. After being married petitioner lived in Scotland for about five years. He then came out to Australia, and afterwards to New Zealand. ITiu wife joined «*him two years afterwards. He lived in Port Chalmers for a considerabletime, and then went to Napier, where he kept a hotel for two years. He then returned to Port Chalmers. The co-respondent came out to New Zealand before petitioner, and when petitioner went to live at Port Chalmers M'Kenzie lived with him. Petitioner*' was a ship's carpenter, and used to go to sea, and his wife helped to keep the house by taking in boarders. When petitioner went to Napier M'Kenzie came up to his house last Christmas two years ago. Petitioner did not invite him. After staying at petitioner's place for a timo M'Kenzie returned to Port Chalmers. At his wife's request, petitioner subsequently -went to live at Port Chalmers again, and M'Kenzie once more stopped in the house. The first occasion that petitioners suspicions were aroused was one night when they were all sitting in the house, and petitioner went down to one of the hotels for a bottle of stout. When he returned the doors weie all shut. He went into the kitchen, and his wife jumped up off the sofa, where M'Kenzie was sitting. He accused his wife of intimacy with M'Kenzie, but she denied the charge. On another occasion he was wakened up between 2 and 3 o'clock one morning by a noise in the ; kitchen. He went into the kitchen, and found his wife in her nightdress in the room with ' M'Kenzie. Again, one day last year, when he 1 went home to dinner, he had some words with [ his wife, and he accused her of being intimate : with M'Kenzie. She then admitted that she • j had been, and said she would do what she had ; done again. Acting on the- advice of counsel, 1 ] petitioner put his wife out of the house, and ; had not lived with her since. I Evidence for the petitioner was «J,30 giflepi,

by John Alexander Matheson (son of the petitioner), who spoke as to seeing M'Ke.izie fiCqiiently,going into the respondent's bedroom at Port Chalmers: ancl by Isabella Ma + hcEon, formerly housemaid for the petitioner at Nppier, who depose.i that the respondent often took tea mto M'Kcnzie's bedroom at Napier, and remained in the room with kin for some considerable time. His Honor granted a decree nisi; to be made absolute in thi-so months. On the applies tion of Mr Solomon, costs to tho extent of £30 were given as r gainst the co-respondent.