DUNEDIN DIVORCE COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3689, 29 July 1886, Page 3

DUNEDIN DIVORCE COURT.

MILLS Y. MILLS AND FBBRIER. j [By Telegraph.] Dunedih, July 28. In tho case Mills v. Mills and Ferrier, heard m the Divorce Court to-day, the evidence taken on commission m Melbourne was handed mto the Judgo, but not read. The actß of criminality were proved to have been committed at Wangaratta, Melbourne, and Williamstown. The parties went Home by an Orient steamer under an assumed name. A detective went on board tho name vessel and served them with a citation as they landed m London. _ Mr Denniston, who appeared for tho petitioner, contended that as there was nothing to show collusion, thero was no reason m the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, why decrees should not bo granted m tho absence of the petitioner. Iho court took time to consider whether the petitioners' attendance could be dispensed with. Mr Mills is at present absent from the colony. On the court resuming, neither the respondent nor the co-respondent were represented. Mr McLean testiGed that important business had called the petitioner from the colony, and his return was indefinite. Sloaars Pym and Spring said they had been on intimate terms with tho parties, and they testified that the relations between tho petitioner and his wife had always been most amicable, and they never suspected anything wrong. Letters were received stating that Ferrier nnd tho respondent were living together ia London. The Judgo Baid a very clear case had been mado out, and the question was whether the petitioner was guilty of connivance, collusion, or condonation. The evidence negatived any idea of the sort, still it was a question whether tho petitioner should not bo called on to answer whether arrangements had been come to for bringing the suit. Mr Denniston pointed out that the petitioner had given a reasonable explanation for his absence. The Judge replied that the practice always had been for tho petitioner to be asked if any communication had passed between him and the respondent since the commission of adultery. Tho petitioner's evidence was always best for this purpose. Mr Denniston contended that there could be no condonation after tho proceedings were commenced, and this had been done as soon as tho petitioner knew of the adultery.