SUPREME COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3249, 12 July 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE & MATBIMONIAL CAUSES.

Tuesday, 11th Jttly.

(Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston, Mr Justice Chapman, Mr Justice Q-resson, and Mr Justice Richmond.) THOMPSON V THOMPSON AND BEOWN.

Messrs Izard and Pharazyn appeared fox* the petitioner. After the outlines of the oase and the grounds of the petition were briefly stated, the evidence of several witnesses was taken. The substance of the details is this :

The Rev. Mr Moir proved that he married James Thompson to Mary Cameron in Wellington, in 1863, and to baptising their first child. The petitioner then kept the publio house known as the Aurora. He subsequently went to the Wairarapa and engaged in the public line ; but as it was not paying him he gave it up, and took to carpentering. About this time he discovered that his wife displayed a fondness for ardent spirits. His work was such a distance from his house that he used to come home only once a week — on Saturdays. His wife had become so confirmed in the habit of drinking at this time that her husband sometimes deemed it unsafe to leave her in charge of the children ; at this time he was ignorant of how his wife obtained liquor, nor had he seen anything to excite his jealousy. One week, however, instead of awaiting till Saturday to go homo, as was his custom, he made his appearance on a Friday, when he found his wife Blightly under the influence of drink, with a man in the house with her. This man had been a servant of Thompson's, scjmetimes in the capacity of barman, sometimes cook, and though his name was Nicholas Brown, he was better known as " Nick the Greek." Thompson accused Brown of supplying drink to his wife, but he denied it. After some altercation he left the house. Shortly after this Mrs Thompson left her husband, and was absent for some time before the latter discovered what direction she had taken. Hearing that she was living on the Wellington Beach in Orr's Bestaurant, he came to town and obtained the strongest presumptive information of his wife's criminal intercourse, and subsequent departure for Canterbury with " Nick the Greek." Agnes Greer who knew the respondent before her marriage went to act as general servant at Orr's restaurant, where she recognised Mrs Thompson, and found that she and Brown occupied the one room as mun and wife. They were in the restaurant only throe days after the appearance of Mra Greer, before they left suddenly for Canterbury in the Rob Roy, in consequence as was then supposed, of some doubtful transaction of Mr Thompson and another over a £5 note. Mrß Greer let her mistress know on the firat day that the woman lodger was not accompanied by her husband, though the latter spoke of her as bis " Missu3 ;" and atao let Mrs Thompson know that her identity was known by asking after her husband. She was not disturbed by the question and answered, "in the Widerup, at home." Another witness named Ann Bassett who had once lived with the Thompson's in the capacity of house servant, said that Mrs Thompson had during the time she was absent from her husband's house visited her home on the Tinakori Road, being in the company of " Nick the Greek." The next time she saw Mrs Thompson was on the evening of her departure for Cbristchurch, the latter having sent for her to bid her good bye. Basset remarked, on learning from Mrs Thompson her intention to go away with Brown, that it would become her better to remain and look after her children ; but she declared that she would never live with her husband again. This was the last seen of the resoondent in Wellington, though petitioner was prepared with secondary evidence of hia wife's aotions since leaving here. The oase was then postponed till Thursday, at 11 o'clock, when Mr Izard will move for a deoree.

HANCOCK V. HANCOCK.

Mr Allan appeared for petitioner. There wore no witnesses in this case, and some difficulty appeared on behalf of the petitioner in proving the marriage, which acoording to law was considered a foreign marriage. The Court at length decided to examine petitifcioner, with the view of establishing the fact that there had been a regular marriage, ap£ that the petition was bona fide, and not the result of collusion or connivance between the petitioner and the respondent ; but hie cvi* dence regarding the adulterous practices of hiß wife was not deemed admissible. This was, however, supplied by Mr Allan, who read the certified depositions of three witnessesone a constable named Barry, and two friends of petitioner, named respectively Bird and Woodland, From the evidence of Hancocks who gave a connected narrative of his matrf- * monial allianoe since making the acquaintance IJ of his wife, it appeared that he made her« acquaintance in Adelaide, while acting as «B barman. She bore the name of Emily MatildaT^ Hutohings, and was about twenty years of age. Her father was a reporter upon the " Advertiser." On the Ist April, 1863. in St Lukes' Ohuroh, they were married by the Rev Mr Pollitt, officiating minister of the Church of England of that parish. Soon after marriage he went to Geelong, where he acted as a waiter for some time. He did not remain long in hiß place and went to Dunedin to better his position. Having obtained employment as barman in M'Oubbin's Hotel, in Dunedin, he waited for six months before sending for his wife. Soon after his wife joining him in Dunedin, he rented the Rainbow Hotel. He managed the bar and his wife the domestic affairs of the house. They occupied that house for about eighteen months, the first nine months living happily enough j but th© latter part of the term things were not pleasant as his wife began to give way to drink. In tho latter end of 1865, Hancock took the

Queen's Hotel, and tried every means he could fcbink of to keep his wife from the bar ; but she used to rise before him in the morning, and when he sometimes came down in the morning he found her lying on the sofa in hysterics and much under the influence of drink. This unpleasant state of things oontinued for about eight months. During her intemperate fits he had seen reason to complain to her of a looseness of manner in her demeanor to men ; and on one occasion discovered there had been an improper intimacy between her and his barman. The latter he dismissed instantly ; but "" his soon had further confirmation of his wife's guilt, by finding that she used to rob the till to give the money to her paramour while he ivas out of work. About this time Mrs Hancock expressed a wish to live alone. Her husband made no objection, and gave her a house, permitting her to take away what furniture she liked to furnish it. He also allowed her £1 per week maintenance. She went to live in the house, but did not remain in it long, soon after taking up her residence in Walker street, where she lived in prostitution with the barkeeper. From that time her prostitution became more common, as men were seen to go to and from her house at all hours.

Decision will be given in the case on Thursday next, at eleven o'clock. The Court then adjourned till Thursday next.