THE GATES OF DIVORCE.

Evening Post, Volume LXIX, Issue 88, 14 April 1905, Page 6

THE GATES OF DIVORCE.

MR. JUSTICE COOPKH ON -SUBBTITUTKU SKRVICK. RESTRICI'IONH IMPOSED. Tho following interesting -judgroenUwas* 'dilwtscea in OhnntbeM tliis im»rning by Irtr. J«u«tice Owper, touching on throedivorce suits— ttoyd v. B«yd, llutehMison v. llutetiinson, inul WeUwnan v. Welksww»—and on Hie general principle of the eubntrtuted servico by which dTvorco proceedings may be fncifitated. IFis Hoßour* •»y" : — "In thoae mntton* which arc suits for diwoiwtion of' marriage, the potitioncrs. hwl «Mii -awdied to mo to diopewo with i>eraonal service of the writ of summons and petition, niidto <rire«t «übwtituted«orvke. I have repeatedly refused to minkoordent upon mmtW apptiavtions upon thee vneorxoborated evidence of a pet*tioi»er, «ml as practitioners do not «eem to bo aware of tut> practice which, in my opiuion. miwt be followed in such matters, I dwinre t\> state tliv nuvterhil which in my opinion must bo brought before, the tWdge before he ought to mako an order under rale 10 disposing with pemonul service. An a(Hd»vit by thn<petrtioner is iwscoseary, awl the »tat«.-meiilH contained" in that uf-> fithwit must be corroboraied by the affl«lawTt. or nlHAivits of some reputable independent person or persons. Tlw ofHd«.v4tß> must nhow HufHcivnt facti* to fully satarfy tho Judge t-hnt every etforMlwa been.ma<lo to Hnd out tins respondent, ami to-give liiim i or her an opportunity of appearing; and' the affidavitM mu»t »how with partic;uLvrity the enquiries that have been made, nnd from whom thoy have been made, and that a reasonable search has been' imcfo to discover tho whoreaboute of Uw , ■TCsjH>ndent in the place where ho or she. , rwas last beard nf. "The power to dispense wkh personal service ought to bo ve.ry cimikmuwly ex«rci«"<l. A milt for dissolution of marftago i» a mnMer of very grave importance, nnd its consequences nro so seriottt that the Court slionld be very cautiotw of allowhig tho petitioner to proceed in fhe absenct' of tho roHpondcnt*" Ilw Honour quoU>« from Lord Hanncn : "I ]w,vt> several times «jxpres«od my anxiety ]eM, after I had ordered .substituted »««r■vice (in a respondent, ho or sho should ', ajrpexir and state that no notice of theh proceedings hnd been roceivod und that £ tlwre was a good defence." His Honour 3 lum "ft'lt th« mimo anxiety. Sinoe the grounds upon which v nuit for disw/lution of marriage have bcon eidarged by I the LegisWit^ire, the numbor of tmitM hno largely inrreuaied in this judicial district, and in a very large number of caae9 ap- \ plicfttions are made to dwpviwe wit-lr por- '■ noiml servire of the writ upon the re- \ ppondent. I repeat that the powors tifiduu * pensarion vested in the Jndge mlkiulH be- ■; very cimfiously exercised, u!id';l*hn.N rigidh ly adiiere to tbe rules 1 have Abovo stnted, and I stall refuse to maico an order r ' whenever Hie materials placed before me i Ho not satisfy the requisites of these » rules. s "In tho present cases, tho petitioner* i in-eaclr instance- iif moving uponrfiis or her .} uncorroborated uJHdavit, In \k>j6 r. Boyd } nnd Moore, the petitioner asks me to dispense with aeivice upon both tho respondent and the co-respondent His affidavit does not st-ite that he lmn made any enquiry at nil regarding tho co-respondent. In Hok'hiinoti v. Hutchinson, the petitioirer states that she was desertedjjy her Vusband in 1898, »nd lmn notiseen or licard rf him since, and Hint site hus made cnkiirifs, and believes he has left the-colony. ihe does not wiy where, or from whom, iho Jut* nwde such enquiries. In Wells«an v. Wellcman, the potitloner s«ys tlwit his wife was fined in September, 1894, for Icpcping a brothol, and'tliat^ in December, 1896, a warrant wan issued for her arrest, and that (die has left the colony. Probably, enquiry through the police may result in her whereabouts being nirertained, It is ridiculous to ask a Judge to dispenifo with service upon material such aa this. I think it probable that in nil these cases, I if proper enquiries were made, Uie where- ' nbouts of the parties might be ascertained.

I am not satisfied that iv any one of tho pie.sent eased any proper enquiries haw> been made, and until this is shown to my Hatisfaction upon proper affidavits, I shaH not tlis|M'nso with pei*sonal .sorviw. 1 'shall, therefore, mako>no order in any of the present ciwck." Mr. Wilfoi d was for petitioner Boyd and petitioner Hutehiiihon, Mr. Herdman fur petitioner Wellsinan.