DIVORCE COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6379, 26 October 1888, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

"•■ VINE v. VINE AND EMERY. [Peb Pekbs Association.] WELLINGTON, Oct. 25. In the Divorce Court to-day, theeasa Vine v. Vine and Emery was heard. This was a petition on the part of Edward Vine, a_ painter, of Wellington, praying for dissolution of his marriage with Louisa Vine, n6e Atkinson, on the ground of adultery with the co-respondent and desertion. Neither the respondent nor the co-respondent were represented by counsel. The petitioner deposed that he was married to the respondent at Christchurch on Christmas Day, 1877, at which time he was following the 'occupation of a baker. They lived together in Christchurch for rather more than two years, when his wife came to Wellington. She was unwell at the time, and thought the trip would do her good. It had been arranged that Bhe should etay at the Occidental Hotel, and witness had given her .£6 for the purpose. In consequence of- what he heaid in Wellington he went to Wanganui, where he found her living in lodgings with Thoma3 Emery, the co-respoudent, a carpenter, whom witness had previously known at Christchurch. They had taken two rooms in the house of a widow. He had no reason to suspect any undue ■ intimacy between Emery and the respondent while in Chiistchurch. . Emery had-lef t Christchurch a week in advance of therespondent. The latter told witness at Wanganui that she intended to live with Emery. Witness settled in Wellington, and four or five months afterwards his ■ wife and Emery passed through this city on their way to Kaikoura. About eight months later, when witness was working in Christchurch, he learned that the pair were living at Addington, and saw them several times. They remained in. the district for a couplo of years, and he did not knaw what afterwards became of them. In reply to his Honor as to the cause . of delay in bringing the matter before the Court, witness explained that he could not ajford the expense of employing a eoliciior unijbil the. year 1885, when he gave instructions to Mr E. Shaw, who took the necessary steps. Emery was served with a . . citation in Sydney, after a good deal 08 trouble. Paid Mr Shaw the necessary money, and afterwards saw him repeatedly on tho-eubjectj when he only said that the matter was being delayed in some way. Could not state whether money was- ever sent to a Sydney lawyer. Mr Shaw did . not get the papers, and left him in the lurch. Then he went away from Weiling ton. Witness did not again take the , : matter up until about a month ago. He paid Mr Shaw about £15 in all. The evidence proved that the repondent and .Emery had lived together in Christchurch : t-as man and wife. Emery had now gone . away, but respondent was still living there with her relatives. His Honor granted a decree nisi, subject to proof that the citation had been duly served on the corespondent, and directed that the mption to make the decree absolute should be made at the first sitting of the Court after the expiration of three months.