RUNAWAY WIFE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 23, 30 January 1911, Page 6

RUNAWAY WIFE.

JUDGE CONDONES TEE VOYAGE TO NEW ZEALAND. "THE WEAKER VESSEL." (From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, December 23. The sad story of a runaway wife's voyage to 'New Zealand, told last week in the Divorce Court, 'has had a remaarkat>le ending. Although iihe wife 'had been found guilty of misconduct by the jury, Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane decided on Tuesday to allow a divorce from her husband, in order that she might be free to marry another man. Such a decision is probably ■without precedent in the history of the Divorce Court; but, on the facta of the case, it ■must be admitted that the Judge 'has ■taken a wise, Jiumane, and generous view. The facta of the case, it may t>e remembered, were as follows:— Mrs. Gwendoline Joyce Pretty married her father's groom. She afterwards left (him, in consequence, as 6he said, of his cruelty, and 'in company "with a man named Halfpenny, a plasterer, she -went to New Zealand. She eventually returned to England, and obtained a divorce from her hus: band on the ground of his cruelty and infidelity. The King's Proctor intervened to prevent -this decree from being made absolute, on the ground of Mrs. Pretty's relations with Halfpenny during the voyage to New Zealand. Mrs. Pretty denied that anything wrong had occurred, but the jury which heard the case last week found the charge proved. The Judge was therefore left in this position: —

Should he rescind the decree nisi, or should he exercise the discretion allowed ■him by the Act of 1859, and allow it to be made absolute?

The facts of the case, he said, were very exceptional. His difficulty was due to the course Mrs. Pretty had taken, apparently by the advice of counsel—advice that was very unfortunate. It was contrary to the interests of Mrs. Pretty herself.

She had been in the witness-box, and denied on oath the allegation with regard to Halfpenny. It was right that he should say that he agreed wdth the verdict of the jury in this matter. Mrs. Pretty had not only commibted misconduct, but she ihad unfortunately committed perjury as well.

His ZiOordship then reviewed Mrs. Pretty's nnhappy career. There •was no doubt that the man Pretty betrayed her, but not in the criminal manner that had been suggested. Her marriage with him was bound to be a failure in the circumstances. She had afterwards experienced the greatest cruelty at his hands. She had every xeaeon to leave ■his house. She was, in fact, forced to do so.

When she went to New Zealand, ehe and Halfpenny had evidently come to the conclusion that they would go together. If she had come before the .Oourt and not kept the voyage to New Zealand secret, if she had said that she was driven from her husband's house, then her case ■would have come weld within the cases wherein the Court had exercised its discretion in an allused wife's favour.

Some people, continued hie Lordship, were foolish enough to tMnk that the Divorce. Court should treat men and women in the same way. This was not the case, and he hoped never would be the case. The Court was always ready to make allowances for the weaker vessel. Woman was the weaker vessel of the two. Her constitution and 'habit of thought and feminine weakness might lead her to do things which might be excusable in her, but not in man.

If Mrs, Pretty ihad told the truth, there would have been no difficulty in making this allowance for her. If it had not been for the abominable way in which she was trsated.'by her husband, she would not have gone off. "I (have thought the case' over most carefully," went on the Judge. "I'have doubted Whether I am justified in exercising my "discretion.. Jtere is a young woman, only twenty-one years old now. She has been through, a life which, may 'be fairly described as a tragedy. She lost her mother when she was very young. She spent a great part of iher childhood away from home. If thds decree is rescinded, she is bound to this man Pretty. What -would be the result? It would -be absolute ruin to her. I think when the legislature gave mc discretion, it meant mc to take every circumstance into account. ,.

TTja Lordship then dealt with the part played in the case by Mr. Arthur fi. Stevens, the young barrister, who met Airs. Pretty after her return to England, and became engaged to her, 'knowing her unhappy story.

"He fell in love with her," said the Judge, "and through, his loy-e behaved in a very honourable way towards her, but perhaps not too wisely. He has told mc that, notwithstanding what has happened, he is prepared to marry her. If he marries her, he will lift iher up out of the slough of misery and despair. Can there be any doubt in any human being's mind what I ought to do? I must put aside my natural indignation at her having committed perjury."

Tfig Lordship went on to say that in the Divorce Court, above ell others, honesty was the best policy. In such v cose as thss the Court was always ready to recognise the weakness of sex. He bad come to the conclusion that in exercising his discretion in Mrs. Pretty's favour lie was acting as it was (his duty as an English Judge. He was glad to think that the King's Proctor, who had done 'his duty thoroughly an this matter, did not raise any objection to ta<: exercise of the discretion. His decision was that the decree nisi should be made absolute. 'Has Lordship's final words were: "After these people are married, I hope the past and its misery will toe forgotten, and a Ihappy life will ensue." Mrs. Pretty's decree was made absolute next day.