(per united press association.) Wellington, April 36. At the Divorce Court to-day the case of Smith v Smith and Strike was heard. Petitioner was a contractor, residing in Wanganui, and was married to the respon dent, Alice Smith, in January, ISS4. The parties resided in Wanganui for some time, when, in consequence of something which took place, petitioner and his wife separated, the latter coming to Wellington, where she became acquainted with G. A. Strike, the corespondent, an abated water manufac turer. Strike took her to his residence, and intimated that he was going to Wanganui to get a divorce for Mrs femith from her husband. Shortly after Strike left Wellington, and Mrs Smith appeared to have joined him at Masterton, and a day or two afterwards there appeared in a Welling ton newspaper an advertisement, inserted by Strike, to the effect that he had married Alice Dixon, that being respondent's maiden name. Evidence was called to show that Mrs Smith resided with Strike for sometime in the early part of the year, and upon adultery being discovered, petitioner took proceedings arid sought to recover damages, totrike. it appeared, then got respondent out of his house, and she went to another part of the colony at his expense. The only ques tion for the jury to decide was really ona of damages. The ju r y awarded petitioner £50 damages against the co respondent. The judge granted a decree nisi. Counsel for co-respondent obtaiued leave to move to have the verdict reversed on the ground of insufficient evidence to prove that he was aware that respondent was a married woman. The case of Waller v. Waller was also heard. This was a wife's petition for dis solution of marriage .on grounds of the hus band's continued cuuelty and adultery. The parties were married in Wanganui in October, 18S0, and four months after mar riage Waller commenced to ill-use his wife to such an extent that she was compelled to leave him. Later on a reconciliation was made, but with no better success, and finally Mrs Waller left him altogether. Adultery committed in Wellington was clearly proved, and His Honor granted a decree nisi. April 18. In the divorce case of Monkton v. Monk ton, his Honor refused to grant a decree nisi. 