SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2467, 26 June 1901, Page 24

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Friday, June 2i. (Before liis Honor Mr Justice Williams.) MORISON V. KIA.-ORA GOLD DREDGING COMPANY. Claim £475, balance due on a contract for building pontoons. His Honor lemarkect tliai in this case, lie understood, no defence had been filed. Mr Solomon, for the plaintiff, said that such was the fact, and that on the previous day the defendant company had confessed judgment for the amount ot the claim. He asked his Honor to enter up judgment for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff accoidmgly, with costs.

DIVORCE AKD MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. HARRIET ORB V. WILLIAM KIRKLAND OHR. 1 A wife's petition for dissolution of mariiage. | Mr F. R. Chapman, who appeared for the > petitioner, asked that the hearing of this suit ; should be postponed, as the petitioner was in. able to appear owing to illness. ! His Honor adjourned the case to the next sittings of the court. ADOLF AHLFELD V. LOUISA AGNES AHLFELD. A husband's petition for dissolution of marriage. Mr Solomon appeared for the petitioner; the respondent did not appear, and was not represented by counsel. In opening the case, Mr Solomon said that tho petitioner was a merchant, carrying on business in this city. The marriage of the parties took place in 1880, and there were four children In 1893 Ahlfeld brought a suit for divorce against his wife. That suit, which was heard before Mi Justice Ward, was defended and dismissed for want of proof, it being held by the judge that no case had been made out. Th paities thereupon entered into a deed of separation on the 30th June, 1893, by -which Mrs Ahlfeld got control of the children, and Ahlfeld entered into a bond to purchase furniture and to pay her 4gs per week for the support of the children and herself. Thi3 arrangement remained in fore? to the 21st of January, 1897, when, it was varied by the petitioner taking over th. custody of the children, and paying the respondent 30s per week. It would hi shown that the petitioner had made the payments regularly, the money being paid through the firm. During the whole of tht timt since 1893 the petitioner h?d never spoken tc or corresponded in any way with his wife Sometimes Mrs Ahlfeld lived in Dunedia and at other times in Christchurch. Quite recently it was discovered that the respondent had given birth to a child in May, 1899, at Christchurch. The evidence on thi3 point was quite conclusive, and after proceedings had been commenced, the respondent, on being served with a copy of the alle-

admitted the truth of all that was alleged, and said that she had been afraid her husband would find out and take proceedings. Evidence in support of the petition was given by Adolf Ahlfeld, Aichibald Wallace, and William Grant Hay, and the evidence that had been taken m Chustchurch was also put in. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to bscoine absolute after three months. The court was then adjourned until Monday next.