SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2676, 28 June 1905, Page 13

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL. Thuiisday, June 15. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.;

BBAP.n V

A husband's petition for dissolution of marriage. Mr Solomon appeared for the petitioner, Henry Beard, of Kononi uiear Lawrence;. Thel-e was no appearance of the respondent, Elizabeth Mary Tanton Beaid.

In opening the case, Mr Solomon said that Beard was a farmer, living in the Tuapeka district. He married jbout 20 years ago. Early this year Beard had a ploughman engaged named Henry John M'lntyre. Beard was not quite satisfied wifch his wife's attitude towaiu? this man, but had no reason to suspect auyUuno- wrong. Early in Febiuary Mrs BsJird left home on the pretence of coming to UuneJin to see a sister who had a sick child, but almost immediately afterwards is turned out thai she did not go to her sister's house at all, but went to Tiinaiu with M'lntyre, and they lived there together. She wrote to her husband stating that he could have a divorce if he wanted it. The respondent's family, who were respectable people, subsequently took Mrs Beard away from M'lntyre, and she went to Gisborne.

Henry Beard, the petitioner, said tha^ the inarripge took place at Trinity Chiirch,""Lawlence, on the 14th January, 1885. There 'were nj children. He saw nothing wrons? between his wife and M'lntyre. but they seemed a little kindly towards each other, and when, as a result of his speaking to- her about the man, she started crying and got angry he began to think there was something amiss, though at the time he had no proof. -Mrs Beard left her home on the 10th Febiuary to go to Dunedin. She wrote to him on tho 22nd saying that they would be happier apart, that "she coiild nofc' stand the old life any more, that he always seemed to be paying "her out, and asking whether he would'go ft?r a divorce if he could get it. He had had no other communications with his wife. He had made no arrangement with her to g«t a divorce. His wife was now in Gisborne, where her family had taken her. George Greenfield, manager of a "boardinghouse in Timaru, said he recognised the two photos produced — the respondent and M'lntyre. On the 15th February last they stayed at his house, occupjiug the same room for two days. They werfe known as Mr and Mrs M'lntvre. "Catherine AVoiihington, keeper of a private boarding-house at Timaxu, also recognised the photos. The -parties stayed at her house m February as Mr and Mrs ".i'lntyce. Decree nisi granted, to become absolute after thr.se months, costs against the corespondent.

O'CONNELT. V. O"COXKELL. j A wife's petition for dissolution of marriage. ; M" Sim, who appeared for the petitioner , (Alice" O'Connell), said that appearance was . entered, but no defence had been filed. Mr . Hanlon said that the reason for entering a-p- . pearance was in order that respondent might ■ be heard on the question of the custody of the children, but as both the children were in the Industrial School, he (Mr Sim) apprehended that no order would be made. His Honor said it was always open to apply. Mr Sim said that the parties were married on" the 31st March, 1892, at Fitzroy, Victoria, and lived together in Victoria for tv/o years. They then came to InvercargiU, where O Connell got into trouble for breaking into a jeweller's shop, and was sent to gaol. After his release he went to Christchurch, and his wife joined him there, but found it nnP°»ibte to ive-with him, ana she returned to Dunedin. It was at Christchurch that the cause ofthe Present, suit r.rose. The evidence of adultery was this: In January of 1904 O'Connell registered the birth of a child, of which he described himself as the father, the mother being sta ed as Florence O'Connell. formerly Clarke. For this, O'Connell was charged with making a false declaration, and sentenced by the court at Christchurch. Detective Hill knew O Connell. and would prove that he was the personso convicted. * „ Petitioner, in the coiuse of her evidence, said that when she -rejoined her husband m Cliristchurch he would not give her a propej home, and he beat the children badly and threatened to murder her. Detective Hill also gave evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months: costs on the lowest scale. ' Mr Sim said, as to the children, the petitioner was anxious to have the custody, but as they were in the custody of the State his Honor might not make an order. His Honor: I do not suppose one can make an order. An application could be made to the magistrate to get the ohildren out. -Unless some order is made the father would have a right to apply. "Would not this be the proper order custody of tte children given to the mother subject to the" existing order for their detention in the school' 1 ' Mr Sim: Mr Hanlon is desirous of being heard, your Honor Perhaps you will allow it to be mentioned again. His Honor agreed. HAKT V. HART. A wife"s petition for dissolution of marriage. Mr Solomon, counsel for the petitioner, Charlotte Hart, said that he had a difficulty about this case. The adultery took place in Christchurch, and through a misunderstanding the witnesses as to that were not piesent. Woul<3 liis Honor allow those witnesses to appear to-morrow, and go on with the rest of the case to-day? His Honor ass-ented. Mr Solomon then opened the facts. The parties were married at "Wellington in 1900, and almost at once Uie wife had to get a separation older. She was a respectable young woman, the daughter of respectable people, whilst the husband was "'a very bad egg."~ being no other than the Henry Hart who cam-e before the court recently and was convicted of forgery-. He had, in fact, been in gaol pretty well all the time since his marriage. Now lie had the imperlinencs to write to the court asking the custody of the child, though he had never really lived with his wife, but left her to her father's caie. On being served with the petition he wrote a characteristic letter in which he recognised the accusation by his wife was just, all his anxiety, apparently, bemg that his wife should assist him to geb bail. The facts were very simple. The wife's father had reason to believe that Hart was associating with women of the lowest order, and had him .watched, with the result that strong evidence had been obtained against him. Petitioner gave evidence, describing Hart as a gieat drunkard, very cruel, and a notorious The further hearing was then adjourned till this (Friday) morning, at half-past 10 o'clock. FfiiDA.Y, June 16. This case was before the court on the pre- j vious day, and was adjourned for further evidence. This was now forthcoming, counsel calling two detective officers from Chiistchurch I Samuel Kraetzer and Ernest Joseph Donahoo — 1 tp give evidence as to tlie adjultenr

J His Honor granted a decree nisi, to liprom* sUohiie after time months; petitionci >o Lav* I ci'stody of the chid.