A SINGULAR DIVORCE SUIT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2532, 19 June 1909, Page 5

A SINGULAR DIVORCE SUIT.

PETITION' DISMISSED WITH COSTS

[Per Press Association*.] DUNEDIN, June 18. In tlio Supreme Court to-day Mr. Justice Williams gave judgment in the divorce suit, William John Newell a*. Amelia. Newell, in which the petitioner sued for dissolution of marriage on the ground that his wife had, without just cause, wilfully deserted and left him during over five years. The respondent deserted the petitioner in March, 1903, the parties, having then been married nearly 18 years. It was admitted that their married., life had been very unhappy. The netitioner, in evidence, asserted that his wife had, throughout her married life, been guilty of misconduct, but for this- assertion His Holier could see no foundation, the assertion amounting to no more than suspicion. There was no evidence tending to show that she left home to take up with any other man. or that during her five years’ absence she misconducted herself with anyone. The petitioner admitted that he was constantly accusing her of misconduct. Twelve days before the respondent left her home she had an altercation with her husband, owing to the latter objecting to her -talking with a man named Agnew, 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, the Court ought to have some evidence that lie had some reasonable ..ground for making the charges. In the present case ho should conclude from the evidence that the petitioner was obsessed with a groundless suspicion. His Honor said ho could not say that tlio respondent had left her home wthont just cause, or that she was not justified in staying away, until, at any rate, her husband ha<l come to a better mind. If, in the opinion: of the Court, the petitioner s habits or conduct induced or contributed to the wrong complained of, the petition might be dismissed, lhe petition would bo dismissed with costs against petitioner.