SUPREME COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXIV, Issue 2914, 11 November 1869, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

«* Wednesday, Novembeb 10. (Before the full Court.) CEOITCHEE T. CBOUCHEB. This was a petition for a dissolution of marriage, presented by Emily Anne Croucher against her husband Elijah. Hays Croucher, onthegrounds of bigamy and adultery. Mr Tracers appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Quick for the respondent. Mr Travers, in opening the case, said that the respondent had entered an appearance , but had not filed an answer. The following witnesses were called and examined byMrTraveraon behalf of the petitioner : — Frank Morton Ollivier : lam a solicitor practising in Wellington. On the 2nd of February last L served a copy of the citation as well as of the petition on the respondent personally. W. T. L. Travel, examined by the Court, said that on the 28th of October last he served a copy of the petition upon the Attorney-General, but that there was not any answer. Rev. Arthur Stock : I am a clergyman of the Church of England, and incumbent of St. Peter's Church. I was officiating in 186 ' under licence of the Marriage Act, but I do not remember marrying the respondent to his first wife, but the certificate now produced and shown to me is in my handwriting, and I never by any chance write or sign such a document before performing the ceremony of marriage. I married these people by license, and the certificate is a true copy from my register. It wus registered on the 26th September, 1860. Eliza Cauty : I was the widow of one James Thomas Cauty. I know Emily Anno Cauty (the petitioner in this case) and Elijah Hays Croucher, the respondent. lam now married to Croucher, and whs mnrried to him at Chrietchnrch. I knew Albert Sedcole ; ho is my brother. I wus married before the Registrar. I knew that the respondent was married to Emily Anne C&uty. I have known the petitioner ever since she was ten years of age. When I married her brother, who was my first husband, we took the petitioner to live with us, and we brought her up. I tried to persuade her not to marry the respondent, because she did not. like him. They did not live together after marringe more than three months. My husband and Croucher were partners. The petitioner persuaded her husband to go away, because she did not like to live in Wellington, and in order to make |her hnppy, he wenfc.awny to Port Cooper. He went first to get a vessel, and he promised his wife, in our presence, that us soon as he got a vessel, he would spnd for her. A week afterwards she came and told me that she hnd received a letter from him, and 1 aski'd her when she wus going to him, and ehe said that she did not know. A week afterwards she received another letter, but he did not any when she was to join him. He ngain wrote h(>r word that he had got a vessel, and sent her £18. and told her that she was to come to him directly, and to leave her houso just as it was. She accordingly left Wellington on 24th December, in 1860, aud I never saw her afterwards until I saw her in Court this morning. The respondent returned to Wellington on the 27th December, just, three days after his wife had left, and we searched every place for her, for we thought that she had mado off with herself, but we could not find her. She did not tell me where she was going when she left, but I of course supposed that she was going to Port Cooper to join her husband. About six months after she disappeared, I heard that sly was at Wanganui, living under the name of MisNeville. I wrote to her, and blio answered my letter, but did not tell me what she wus doing. 1 did not see the respondent for many months afterwards, as he never came near my house. He came to Wellington very often, but I never caw

him, and I never told him that hia wife was living at Wanganui. My first husband was drowned in this harbor on 26th January, 1861, and after his death I kept a shop in Willis street, and the respondent dealt with me, and 1 supplied [ him with all his groceries. He very seldom came • to the shop himself, but generally sent for what he wanted. My husband at the time of his death owed the respondent £14. He never owed him any more than that, and the respondent never pressed him to pay it ; lam quite sure of that. My husband's name was James Thomas Cauty ; my maiden name wa9 Sedeole, and my brother Albert was present at my marriage to Cauty. I have had three children by the respondent. Croucher tried to find his first wife out, but could not, and I never told him that I had heard, or that I knew that she was living at Wanganui under the name of Miss Neville. She went away from Wellington under that name. The Court here observed that there was very great reason to suspect collusion, for the petitioner did not like Croucher, while his present wife did, so she might have acted as she did with the view of getting a hold upon him. Mr Travera however denied any collusion, and said that the petitioner could never have suspented that there was anything wrong between her husband and her brother's wife, for the Court must remember that when the petitioner went away to Wanganui, her brother was alive, and did not die until 6ome time afterwards. The Court however was of opinion that the petitioner did very wrong in not preventing tho marriage, for Wanganui was not a very great distance from Wellington, and she must havo heard of it, and it did not appear that she had even endeavored to obtain a restitution of conjugal rights. Mr Travers submitted that it was impossible that she could have heard of it, for although Wanganui was certainly near Wellington, the communication nine years ago was not so frequent nor so easy as it is now, and it was evident that she could not have known it from report, as the respondent was cautious enough never to be seen near Mrs Cauty'a house ; and then again he took her down to Canterbury to be married, and this assisted in keeping the matter a secret, and the petitioner could not have moved for a restitution of conj ugal rights, for at that time there was not any tribunal in the colony to apply to for such a purpose, and the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes'. Act only came into force in 1867. Emily Anne Croucher : I left my husband because I had heard that he was committing adultery, and also because I disliked him very much, and I considered myself perfectly justified in leaving him. Henry Sedeole told me that the respondent was living in adultery, but I did not charge him with it. I said nothing to him about it. Henry Sedeole is the brother of my brother's wife, the present Mrs Croucher. Ho told mo this just after my marriage to the respondent. I never heard it before I was married to him, but I made it an excuse for leaving him, as I hardly believed it when it was told to me. The reason why I disliked him so much was because he was nearly always drunk. He lived with me about a fortnight after our marriage, and then he was away for a month. We lived together about six weeks in all. I had known him about a year. I never saw him drunk before our marriage, and I never heard of his being so. I was then only eighteen years of ago. Albert Sedeole was fifteon years of age, and ho was the brother of my brother's wile. I never thought that Albert meant to marry me, and he never asked me to be his wife. We had been brought up together, and were very fond of each other. Tho respondent and I were engaged about three weeks before we were married. He asked me to become his wife about a year before, but I then refused. I never heard of his disreputable life before my marriage to him. He was not exactly cruel to me, but he was not kind and attentive. He was very frequently drunk, in fact, whenever he came home, he was more or less intoxicated. He sometimes came home early, and sometimes very late at night. Ho came home, in fact, at all hours. I did not hear of his marriage with my brother's widow, until eighteen months after it had taken place. Ho was very low and vulgar in his language and conduct to me, and was about tweuty-nine years of age when we were married. The Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, said that the Court had decided upon making the decree absolute, but that under ordinary circumstances the relief of the Co.irt would not have been granted, because the grounds on which the petition had been presented were not sufficiently strong in warranting the Court in granting a dissolution of the marriage, but that the Court considered this as not only an exceptional, but also as a specially painful case, in which a young and inexperienced girl had been induced against her inclination to marry a man, whom, directly after, she discovers to be a drunkavd and a disreputable fellow, and the Court could not wonder that she was disgusted with her short experience of matrimony ; but still the Court did not wish it to be thought that this case should be or was to bo a precedent, for drunkenness and vulgarity cannot of themselves form grounds for a dissolution of marriage or for a divorce, but in tbis case the Court was disposed, under all the circumstances, to be lenient. The petitioner had given her evidence with great clearness and candour, and the decree for dissolution would therefore be granted, with costs against the respondent, leave being reserved to him to appear at the next sitting of tho Court of Appeal, or within three months afcer the issue of the decree, to show cause why he Bhould not pay the costs. The other Judges having concurred, a decree for a dissolution of marriage was then pronounced.