A THEATRICAL DIVORCE CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2660, 8 March 1905, Page 68

A THEATRICAL DIVORCE CASE.

MAUDE BEATTY' S PETITION.

WELLINGTON, March 2. In the Divorce Court case Milbourne v. Milbourne, heard this morning, this was a petition by the wife, Alice Maude Milbourne (formerly Maude Beatty). against her husband, John Ashbridge Milburne, on the ground of adultery. Mr Wilford appeared for petitioner. Respondent did not appear, and was not represented by counsel.

In opening the case, Mr "Wilford said respondent was representative in Now Zealand for Gilbey's gin. The parties n ore married at St. Peter's Church, Wellington, on the 15th July, 18S9. During the period from April to November, 1903, petitioner alleged that the respondent frequently com-mitt-cd adultery w ith sonio person or persons unknown, and that he had left her •without moans of support for a, period o£three years and upwards. For four months after maiTiagei Jlra Milbume continued xmder engagement with the Pollards, and then wenfc to live with her husband. They went to Sydney, and on returning to New Zealand he became Aery ill, an 4 fcho returned to the stage. Afterwards it was decided she should go Home and make a name for herself on the stage there. She went to England, and secured an engagement at Drvux Lafts Theatre, but fajlma

health necessitated her giving up her engagements. The money from her husband, stopped, and if it had not been for her sister and brother sho would not have been, in a position to return to the colony. She wrote to her husband, but got no reply from him, and on returning to the colony was unable to discover hi? whereabouts. She subsequently met him m Sydney, and; the admission he made led to her taking these proceedings. Alice Maude Milburne produced a copy of her marriage certificate, and deposed that she became engaged to respondent m August, 1893. He was made by Mr Collins New Zealand repesentative for Gilbey's gin. She was married on the 15th July, 1839, to respondent at St. Peter's Church. Wellington. After marriage she completed her engagement with the Pollards, and respondent travelled with her to Nelson and Christchurch. Respondent took ill, and after she had returned to New Zealand on

completing her engagement it was agreed that -svitns=s should sret som-ethins; "IB do. Respondent thought she would do better at Home, and she got a very good engagement, but three months after she got Homo the allowances from respondent ceased, and afterwards she became ill and could not continue her work. On returning she coulci not find respondent anywhere in Australia, and had to " shift " for herself." She took an engagement with Rickards. One nighfc she was on her way to the theatre — it was on her opening night, — and respondent blocked the narrow entrance to the theatre

and spoke to her. He looked very untidy — in fact, she did not know him. No greetings passed, and he asked her the term of her engagement with Rickards. He seemed

to be rather bullying her than otherwise. | She told him three months. He asked her J^to take him back. She said she had heard 'he had been carrying on with women in New Zealand and Australia, and he said "Yes," and made certain admissions of. infidelity. She was very upset, and she

told him she would not go back to him.

That was the last she saw of him. Sho then began these proceedings. It was three years since she had had any money frona. him.

Emma Kent, mother of the petitioner,

also gave evidence. While petitioner was away iri~ England she said she frequently

saw respondent. After Mrs Milburne had returned to Australia witness asked him what he was going to do about Maude. Ec said, "Nothing," adding that he- had picked up with a nice little girl, and was going to stick to her. He said Maude could earn her own living.

His Honor said that the evidence was. in hi 3 opinion, sufficiently corroborative of respondent's confession. A decree nisi would be granted, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months; costs on the lowest scale.