Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

DUNEDIN SITTINGS

(Per Press Association.)

DUNEDIN, June 13. In the Supreme Coxirt, to-day, Mr Justice Williams gave judgment m the divorce suit, William John Newell v. Amelia Newell,, in which the petitioner sued for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that his wife had, without just cause, wilfully deserted, and left him deserted, during- ,over five years. Respondent deserted petitioner in March, 1903, the parties having then been married nearly 18 years. It was common ground that their married life had been very unhappy. The petitioner in his evidence asserted that his wife had throughout their married life been guilty of misconduct. But for this assertion His Honour could see no foundation m the. assertion amounting to more than, suspicion. There was no evidence tending to show that she left' home to take lip with any other man, or that, during her five years' absence, she misconducted herself with anyone. The petitioner admitted .that he <-.< wasconstantly accusing .her of misconduct Iwelve days before respondent"" left home she had an alternation witii her husband-owing to the latter objecting to. her talking-to a man named iAgnew and.making a direct charge in connection with another man. If a man constantly made charges of misconduct against his wife, and it was sought to show that such conduct was justifiable, Ii j.,011!* «llgb.t to have some, evidence that _ he had some reasonable ground for making the charges. In the present case lie should conclude, from the evidence, that the petitioner was, obsessed with' groundless suspicion.* His Honour said lie could not say the respondent left home without just cause, or that she was not justified in staying''away until at any rate her husband came to a better mind. If, in.the opinion of the Court, petitioner's habits, or conduct,, induced or contributed to the wrpiv complained of the petition might be dismissed. The petition was dismissed with costs against the petitioner.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19090619.2.42

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12245, 19 June 1909, Page 5

Word Count
318

SUPREME COURT. Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12245, 19 June 1909, Page 5

SUPREME COURT. Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12245, 19 June 1909, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert