CONJUGAL INFIDELITY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3139, 25 April 1883, Page 3

CONJUGAL INFIDELITY.

The story set forth in the petition, Bickling v. Hickling, runs as follows: The parties were married at Christ Church WarnatnboooljOn the 16th Dec., 1869, the petitioner being then about thirty-two .years of age, and the, bride seventeen. ■'The latter was a ward in chancery, and entitled to an income of £450 per annum, arising from the estate involved in the suit Ware v. Ware, together with other property, bringing up her yearly income to something like £9OO. A portion, if not the whole, of the lady’s property, was settled upon and the newly-wedded couple, thus provided with ample means, in addition to the petitioner’s salary, started on their matrimonial life under the most favorable auspices. And, in point of fact, nothing appears to have occurred to mar the happiness of the pair for all the years of their married life until a certain evening in January last, when the petitioner, missing, his wife from her accustomed place in the house, went to search for her in the garden, where ho discovered her under such circumstances as to load him to suspect, that she had been unfaithful to him. A scene naturally ensued, during which the unhappy woman admitted her infidelity, and with tears and entreaties for for giveneas promised amendment. Her husband at last generously yielded to her entreaties, arid, consented to let bygones be bygones, and extended to Lis erring spouse his free forgiveness. A few days afterwards the respondent suggested that it would be well for her to pay a visit to a married sister residing near Ballarat, in order, as she said, that she might have time to think over her position and prepare herself to live a better life in future. To this , proposal the too-confiding husband readily consented, and the respondent took her departure, not for Ballarat, as was supposed at the time, but.for, Melbourne, whence she sailed for Dunedin, in the company of a Mr Davenport Bromfield, the co-respondent, a bank clerk at Warnambool, nineteen years of ago. They travelled as Mr and Mrs Davis. The petitioner further states that to the best of his knowledge and belief the guilty pair have ever since been living together ‘ at Dunedin as man and wife.