Divorce Suit at Napier.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume IX, Issue 1197, 21 February 1902, Page 4

Divorce Suit at Napier.

(Special to the l imes.) • The divorce case William Henry Mackay v. Mary Rosalvn Mackay and James Cameron (co-respondent i in which £SOO damages wore claimed was heard before Mr Justice Edwards. It is of interest to the Rangitikei and Manawatu districts, where the parties are well-known. They wore married in 1881, at the Wellington Registry Office. They lived together in various parts of the colony, eventually arriving at Sandon. There the petitioner became the licensee of a hotel, the co-respondent being either a storekeeper or a storeman in the same township. The co-respondent kept the petitioner’s books for a time, and was free to come and go about the hotel. The petitioner had his suspicions aroused by various occurrences, but when spoken to the respondent protested her innocence. Alackay and his wife came up to Napier and entered into oocupancy of the Temperance Hotel. In November last the respondent went out of the house aud the petitioner found a letter to her from the co-respondent. Council was sure tbat when jury read it they would blush to think that any man could wite so filthy and disgusting a letter to any woman. The respondent had started a reply to the letter but had gone out before finishing it, and in her absence the petitioner found the letter from Cameron and tho partially written answer. The next day proceedings were instituted for the divorce, aud the respondent went away to Palmerston. She lost the run of one of her boxes, and wrote to petitioner about it. He got the box at the railway station, opened it, and found therein a number of letters of incriminating nature. The respondent had admitted her misconduct in writing, but there was no evidence against the co-respondent whose defence was a total denial of all the petitioner’s allegations. Evidence was given by the petitioner and F. Purcell (Clerk to the County Council.) Tho latter corroborated the former's evidence as to tho handwriting boing the co-respon-dent’s. No evidence was called on behalf of the co-respondent, and the jury granted .£3OO damages against him. This morning council moved for a decree nisi, for an order giving the petitioner exclusive custody of the three children, aud for judgment of the £BOO. Council stated that his client did not wish to take any of the money himself, and therefore asked that after payment of costs as between solicitor and client the remainder of the damages if paid, be tied up for tho benefit of the child born of the adultery between respondent and co-respondent. His Honor granted the rule nisi, to be mado absolute on the expiration of three calendar months, and entered judgment for tho damages awarded by the jury, and directed that all moneys recovered be paid into Court for the benefit of tho child. When it was known what amount would be recovered, further stops could be taken. Hi t Honor said, to definitely fix the settlement. An ordor was also made against the co-respondent for £3O costs with disbursements and witnesses’ expenses.