DIVORCE CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 44, 20 August 1918, Page 2

DIVORCE CASE

A WIFE'S PETITION

When a defended divorce case was called on at the Supreme Court yesterday, there Was no appearance of the respondent or his counsel, Mr. T. W. Hislop. Mr. P. W. Jackson, who appeared for the petitioner, intimated his readiness to proceed, but his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking- decided to wait a.few minutes in order that Mr. Hislop might be com municated with.! When Mr. Hislop arrived he told the Judge that he had no idea that the case had been set down for that day, and naturally was not ready to go; on with it. Mr. Jackson pointed out that at the last sittings of the Court the matter had been adjourned until this month, as the respondent had been ordered to find security for costs, which, his counsel said, he was unable to, or .wouW'nb't' do. Mr.. Hislop complained rather bitterly that Mr. Jackson had not acquainted him of./ the fact 'that the fix. turo for yesterday had- been made—one of the ordinary courtesies, as he said, always extended from one counsel to another ; kit Mr. Jackson retorted that Mr. Hislop, in tha interests of his client, should have been present when the fix ture was made, and even if not there was no excuse for not knowing that the case was on, as the list of cases to-be heard had been published in'the newspapers. His Honour was disinclined to go into the question, of. the matter of etiquette as between counsel, but intimated thatvin his opinion Mr. Hislop .was in default. The latter apologised for the occurrence, but his Honour said it was not so much a matter of apology to the Court, but some fifty jurymen had been kept waiting for a quarter of an hour or more, and further delay would mean a considerable cost to the country. He suggested that Mr. Hislop's client should pay the expenses of the day. It was eventually decided that the case should stand over until the afternoon, but Mr. Hislop was still in doubt as to whether or no lie fcould .communicate with his client in time to enable him to be present. A jury to try. the case was sworn in, and the> matter allowed to stand over until later in the day. When the Court resumed in the afternoon the hearing was proceeded with. It was the case of Mary Rule v. William Henry Rule, .a plea for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of habitual drunkenness, cruelty, and failure to maintain.

Petitioner gave evidence at length, detailing several acts of'which she, said her husband had been guilty.' •' Frequently, she said, he had come home drunk and thrashed her and the children. He gave, her little or nothing for a long time to support the family, and she had been compelled to take in sewing, while the children had to sell papers and 'assist in delivering milk in order to obtain- a little money. Petitioner added that she married- Rule in 1892, and there were eleven, children of the union. They had been separated since November, 1916. The hearing of the case had' not concluded when the Court rose, andj it was adinurned until this morning. ■ ' 'Tins mornin^ several -witnesses ' were called by Mr. Hislop, and .they testified as to the sobriety of the respondent. Mr. John Dineen, (probation officer of the Juvenile Court, said he had known Rule for 39 iveara, and had never seen him in the- slightest degree the worse of liquor. He haa always looked on Rule as being kindly, and' considerate, both as a boy and as a man. If Bule had ever made use of bad language to his wife ft could only, in witness's opinion, be under extreme provocation. , . Respondent, in his evidence, said it was absolutely false to say that he had ever been cruel to his wife or used offensive language to her.

Continuing his evidence, the respondent said that in one of her tirades of temper his wife had a summons for a prohibition order served' on him, but it was withdrawn. He had punished one of his children for interfering with 'some fowls, but.had never been cruel to his wife.

To Mr. Jackson, respondent said that it was quite untrue that lie had ever tried to choke his wife or cut her throat or that he thrashed: his two ,boys with a stick when they had their clothes off. If he had a drink it was generally a floss of beer, but he had never been runk in his life. The only occasion on which he had' been under the influence of liquor was at a football dinner, where he got.ono or two. glasses of champagne too many. Mr. A. W. Grenfell, secretary of the Employers' Association, characterised the respondent as a steady,'hard-work-ing man, whom he had known all his life. He had never seen Rule the worse for liq\ior. (Proceeding.)