DIVORCE COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 204, 3 October 1900, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT.

Tuesday, October 2.—Before His Honour Mr. Justice Conolly. LUCAS V. LUCAS.

This was the wife's pstition on the ground of desertion. An answering petition was filed by respondent claiming damages against one Mason, but the respondent did not appear and was not represented by counsel, and tie petition was struck out with costs. Mr. WestoD, who was to have appeared for Mr. Mosod, in the absence of Mr. Ojoper, appeared (instructed by Mr. Walsh) for the petitioner. The following jury were empanneled: —-F. Goodacre (Foreman), W. Madder, A. H. Arnold, G. Marsh, F. W. Jackson, J. B. Arthur, W. Mclndoe, A. Clelfind, J. L. H. Bernard, Oito Arnold, T. B. Penwarden, and Chas. W. Moore.

Mr, Weston opened his case, saying that petitioner was married to one Willhm Luc is in 1881, Her husband iJtft hc-r in 1891. Had never heard of him since till list year, when she heard ho was in Wellington. He called Matha Lucas, who Eaid I am the petitioner in tbis case, I married William Lucas on the 23rd January, 1881, at my mother's house, by the ilev. Mr. Baysent, a Church of England clergyman. I was then 17 years of age. I lived with my husband in Hawera till 1890, and bad three children two girls and a boy two of whom are alive and one dead. My husband left me because he had great ideas of the Makapawa diggings. He returned a few months afterwards and nnuiaed a-faw weeks, during which time we were living a man and wife. He then left and went to Wellington. He stayed there for 18 months or two years. During that time he returned several times to Hawera to see me and the children, On several occasions he sent me money. In 1892 he returned to Hawera, and stayed about a week. Phis was in April, during the Easter holidays. He again left, telling me he had work at Palmerston North. It was pay wish thirt

he went away. I do fidt think there was any necessity to leave Hawera to get work, as there was plenty of work about, On the first occasion he left work to go away. Since he left, in 1892,1 never heard anything of him till Christmas. He did not either write to me or send me any money. I made enquiries as to his .whereabouts. I made enquiries through Mr. 0, E. Major. I also made enquiries through friends, but could get no information. During all this time I have supported, myself by keeping boarders, and my mother lias helped me. She has lived with me. I never gave my husband any cause to leave me.

Oharles Edwin Major said I am a commission, agent in business at Hawera. I know both petitioner and respondent personally. I remember thein living in Hawera. I knew them from 1881 to 1892. Lucas left her about that time. I remember Mrs. Lucas coming to me about a year after that to make enquiries as to her husband's whereabouts. I told her I thought the best course was to see the polioe. I saw Sergeant Stagpoole, and enquiries were made throughout Australia, without any result. I also made some enquiries when I was in Sydney in 1895, as it was thought he might be on some of the diggings in New South Wales. I also consulted a solicitor there on the matter. I understood petitioner and respondent lived on good terms together, but he was hot inclined to work too hard. I know of no .cause for his deserting petitioner in 1892. Mr. Mason has been living in the same house as petitioner, but I cannot speak as to their relations with each other. Mason has lived in the same house for some years. Ido not know if they are living as man and wife. The public are divided in opinion on the subject, some would say '"Aye," and some '•Nay," I myself, knowing Mr. Mason's charaoter, would say " No." I think there is no truth whatever in the statement that'she has had children since her husband went away. I think I should have known. In my opinion, petitioner has lived a reputable and respectable life Bince her husband left her. She has always been a decent, hard-working womtn. I have frequently met her, and she would ask me if I had heard news of George. She would also often call at my office. She had a small piece of land and borrowed some money on it. I transacted her business for her. I

have seen her frequently, and am able to form an opipion. -Martin D. Sfcagpoole, sergeant of police stationed at New Plymouth, stated: I was formerly stationed at Hawera. I went there in August, 1892, and wm lined there till Mircb, 1896. I made frequent (and extensive enquiries regarding the whereabouts of William Lucas all ovej the colony. My rer.son for making the enquiries was that Mrs. Lucas wanted to make her husband support her, but I could find qo trace of him whatever, I knefr the petitioner personally, jwd frequently spoke ia her on tSp|sßubjecfc. Hermotheipllrs. Hicks, was living witb her. I hid not the slightest reason to doubt but that she was leading a thoroughly respectable life. I know \lr. Mason, of Hawera; he is considerably up in years, and a very respectable man. To His Honour: I heard tha question put to Mr. Major, and have als. hoard the reports, but I do not believe she has beon living in adultery with Mison, and never saw any reason to think so, I never hoard of htr having i livid children since her husband li-ft ber, and do not believe it. Thisii the first I have heard of it. His Honour said this was a matter easily proved. Mr. Weston said he would call Mr. Mason.

His Honour: I think it is quite unnecessary. I think it more than likely that some idle rumour has reached Wellington and no enquiry made. His Honour said there was only one issue to try—whether respondent had deserted his wife and if there was just cause for his doing go. The jury had noticed the questions he had asked Mr. Major and Sergeant Stagpoole. He could not ask these questions of petitioner because he was prevented by Statute. He could ask Mr. Major and Sergeant Stagpoole, however, and they had heard their answer. His Honour than briefly raviewed the evidence. The respondent had not come here to support his case, but had alleged on paper that his wife had been living in adultery with Mason but had brought no evidenoe in support of it, and Mr. Major and Sergeant Stagpoole, who had ample means of knowing, said they did not believe it. The statement was no discredit to the petitioner, but was most discreditable to respondent to accuse his wife of such conduct without cause. The question the jury would have to answer was: had the respondent deserted the petitioner without just cause, and he did not think the jury would have any difficulty in saying " yes " to that. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of " Yes."

On the application of Mr. Weston, His Honor said the decree of divorce would issus, the decree to be made absolute at the expiration of three calendar months, Petitioner to have the custody of tbe children, Oosts against respondent on the lowest scale. This concluded the business, and the Court adjourned.