This was an application by Ada L, Nesbit for a divorce from her husband, Francis Nesbit, described as a theatrical agent and professionally, known as Frank Weston.
There was no appearance for the respondent, and proceedings were merely formal, The petitioner was sworn and deposed:—conduct of the other." to the respondent, Frank Nesbit, Iwas married on the 16th August, 1886, duced in evidence fit this definition. spondent told plaintiff that he was unable sionally known as Frank Weston, in this to support her. He had not supported her, Consulate. He was agent for the Rémenyi since two months from the date of their Concert Ca, After the marriage I stayed in marriage. He told her to leave him, He Shanghai about three weeks; from here failed to make any provision for her, nor We went to Foochow and Hongkong, thence has he communicated with her since the toManils. We remained there about three day he forced her to leave him, nor does it months. While in Manila the respondent appear paid for my living fo the first two mouths, renew their married that he has taken any steps to All the ut after that he no money and I paid stances of the case corroborate the alle own way. When I asked him for money tion of his desertion.
The two well re-he said he none to give me and told me cognised elements that must enter into to go away. It was through friends of my own that T got means te leave Mani every case of desertion are found in this, to wit: "cessation of cohabitation and an 900, and Mr, Styles Tis, 400, at. the Thatis now about two years ago. Ihave not intent in the accused party to desert the heard anything about him since. Nearly other." The only difficulty under which eighteen months elapsed before I filed the petitioner labours is the fact that she is the have not heard anything Sout him since tition, an ye since ssu] myself. only witness, and ordinarily under the Common Law would not be permitted to testify except that he passed through Hongkong. but not only does. the Common Law em-stated thay efforts had been made to find In reply to the Bench the petitioner braced in the Feclesiastical Law of England under which the Court assumes jurisdiction {her husband, and the notice was duly of divorce cases, give latitude and discretion published in the North-China Heald. but Bishop in his exhaustive treatise On His Hoxovr—How did you act towards Marriage and Divorce" and Wharton in him from the time you were married in his "Law of Evidence" sanction the usage August till November? Were you a good and trve wife to him, and gare hia no caum and the propriety of so doing. There must however be corroborating circumstances in to tell you to leave him? addition, and these are sufficiently Petitioner—I was. I did not.
And you did not assent to his leaving here. The case is made out afield to warrant the, dissolution of the matrix you?—No, but he had no means of keeping monial bond between the parties, It is and told meso. Fie therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed were married!—No, not after the first two lo never gave you anything after you that the marriage solemnized between Ada L, Nesbit and Francis Nesbit, alias Frank months.
Weston, on the 16th day of August, 1886, be for your support No, it is no use; he You make no us og for alimony and the same is hereby dissolved' and declared henceforth and for ever null and void, has not got anything. and that petitioner be permitted to assume
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.