SUPREME COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3251, 14 July 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE & MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. (Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston, Mr Justice Chapman, Mr Justice Gresson, and Mr Justice Biohmond. Thubsday, July 13. thomp3on t. thomp3on and another. Mr Izard formally moved for a decree under the 125th section of the act, deolaring that a dissolution be granted to the petitioner within six months. The deoree was accordingly made, granting a dissolution of marriage, ..the Court being satisfied of the marriage, and that adultery hud been committed. THOMAS Y. THOMAS AND BYTHEL. I Mr Pharazyn appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner, James Thomas, a shoemaker, w^iile liring at Kaiwarra, made the acquaintance of Emily Jolly, a servant in the house of Mr Carkeek, and kept company with, her for six months, when he went to Blenheim, being under a promise af marriage to Emily Jolly. A few months after she came to Blenheim, and told him she wished to be married at once, as she was pregnant. She assured him that he was the father. Having received a letter from a friend in Wellington telling him that his affianced was not conducting herself as she ought to do, he had his doubts about being the author of the pregnancy. On her representation, however, he married her. Six weeks after eho complained of the pains of pregnancy, and he brought in a doctor aud nurse, but they were not required. About two months after, his wife was delivered of a fully developed male child. From something the doctor had said to iiirn lie again taxed bu'3 wife as to who was the father of the child, and she confessed that the father of the child was her brother-in-law. *He then told her that he would care for her until she became strong, but would not live with her after. He left his wife soon afterward, and wont to Nelson, having intimated that he might recognise her again if she showed that she could live respectably. For about twelve months he heard that she was maintaining herself respectably by needle-work and acting as a monthly nurse. All this time petitioner was living at the Wairau, and had never seen his wife j but he had heard about her from . time to time, and amongst one of the particulars regarding her, he was told that she was living with a flax dresser named Bythel, and had a child by him. As a sort of confirmation of tho story that his wife had a second child by another man, he received a letter from a Wesleyan minister, asking him to take back his wife, and stating that she was willing to go back to him. Some time after his wife jumped off the 'bus in front of his Bhop door, saying she was told he wanted her to live with him again. He told her she was mistaken — that he was then applying for a divorce. She then wanted passage money to Wellington. He refused, but told her ho would put some money in the hands of his solicitor (Mr Pitt), and if he chose to give her some be might. That was the only time petitioner had seen his wife since leaving her at Blenheim ; and he did not even know the co-respondent, Bythel. A decree of the same nature as in the previous case was made. The Court, however, pointed out that the petitioner was not justified in the course he took in making a forced separation between himself and his wife, by leaving her to earn her own living unassisted, but, as both belonged to the. working class 5 and his wife was strong and well able to earn her own living, as she had been in the habit of doing, they saw no reason to refuse the potition, as in all other respects he had dealt kindly and liberally with his wife before separating from her. HANCOCK V HANCOCK. In this case—postponed for judgment from Tuesday — the Court held that the petitioner had proved his marriage to their satisfaction ; and that the evidence produced, relating to acts of adultery, was equally so, a decree was given of the same form as iu the previous cases. The Court then rose.