In a suit for divorce by a husband against his wife on the ground of adultery with the co-respondent it was found that the respondent had committed adultery with the co-respondent, but that inasmuch as the petitioner had himself been guilty of adultery and also of cruelty to his wife in imparting to her a venereal disease, the petitioner was disentitled to the relief claimed, and his petition was accordingly dismissed. After the termination of the trial the co-respondent took the respondent back to his house and resumed his adulterous intercourse with her. The petitioner determined to break if possible this connection, and, desiring that the respondent should resume her position as his wife, within a few days after the dismissal of his petition, accompanied by two friends, proceeded to the co-respondent’s house and demanded his wife, told the co-respondent in the respondent’s hearing that he would have her, and protested against his harbouring her any longer. The co-respondent tried to shut the door in his face, but was unsuccessful, and a struggle ensued, in which the respondent joined and aided the co-respondent, with the result that they succeeded in forcibly ejecting the petitioner from the house. He then left with his friends, and from that date determined to have nothing more to do with his wife, but to watch for the purpose of securing proof of further adultery between her and the co-respondent. Having obtained such proof he brought a fresh suit for divorce and the above facts were proved.