UNUSUAL CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 77, 31 March 1920, Page 6

UNUSUAL CASE

FOREMAN DIVORCE SUIT

RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION

DECREE ABSOLUTE GRANTED

Further hearing of the application made for a decree absolute in the divorce case, Violet Foreman v. Edward Alfred Foreman, which presented jsome remarkable features when previously heard, took place before .his Honour Mr. Justice Hocking at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb represented the petitioner, and the respondent appeared in person. Some time ago the petitioner obtained a decree nisi, and, following this, the application for a decree absolute was made before Mr. Justice Chapman. On that occasion Foreman appealed against the case going on because he had been "threatened with, a judge's influence:""'lf it was a question of reviewing evidence, Mr. Justice Chajjniaii considered that it would be better for Mr. Justice Hosking to review it, and an adjournment was made accordingly. "The one outstanding feature about this case,", said Mr. Mazengarb in support of the application, "is the persistenco with which I'orisniun dogs his wife, and 60 makes her life a ' burden and misery." His Honour: "How can he do that if ho is in gaol?" Mr. Mazengarb: "I am referring U> ;the.history of the case, your Honour. There is also the persistence with which iiu appears and applies for adjournments." ' ." ' ' • A LETTER TO THE SOLITORGENERAL. . His Honour intimated that the respondent had drafted a letter to the SolicitorUeneral seting out certain matters, and the Solicitor-General had not thought fit to intervene. Mr. Mazengarb (reading letter): "He is .aopa-rently canvassing the whole procedure." Continuing, Mr. Mazengarb said: "I mo^e for a decree absolute, and for—and I am especially concerned about this — custody of the child, under section 8 of the Infants Act." Counsel then briefly traversed some of the facts of the case, mentioning that the respondent had been convicted for offences on three occasions in England, and was now undergoing a term of imprisonment for burglary in Wellington. The evidence showed that tight from, the outset of the marriage Foreman, had cruelly ill-treated his. wife. His Honour: "The question of cruelty was not put to the jury. In answer to questions the jury found that he had wilfully deserted his wife, and that during five years he had habitually failed, to .maintain his wife:"

"-..The eccentric behaviour of the respondent''was also touched upon by.Mr. Mazengarb. On one occasion, he said, Foreman was lip a "fir-tree, and threw fircones at his wife when she asked him for some money. There was also the "question of adultery,' "there having been ; three women .with whom he was alleged to have committed adultery. His own .admission to his land-lady was that he was living' in that way The whole trouble counsel continued, was the result of proceedings in the lower Court, when the Magistrate had granted the respondent access to the child for one hour per week. By adopting the rights thereby given him, Foreman.had persistently ,innoyed his wife. , "I suggest with every confidence to the Court," said Mr. Mazengarb, ."that the best course to adopt .for tho happiness of both parties would be to" relieve from the mind of this man that obsession which lias governed him for .the last seven.".'years.".. Z His ■ Honour: ."What age is the child ■now."—"Eight-years." In conclusion, Air. Mazengarh referred to the fact that everything had been dono'tcr'enable Foreman to have a fair hearing, and also mentioned that if an order was made against him he would not "b« in ■anyway-prejudiced. If lie ■ decided-to: go straight, and prove to the Court that he was living .a. better life, fie could apply for some, measure of redress. "AFFECTION AND PABENT- '. . HOOD." The respondent said that he had comu : to Court to fight for the retention of the affection and parenthood of his- daughter, and he then commenced to resurrect ■various details of happenings during his married-life, the points from which were, in his Honour's opinion,, "beating about the bush," and were in the tnain of no importance; His Honour':""lf yon. say you are a fit person, in the face of that (the evidence which had been given to snow that respondent had been guilty, of adultery) tohave.custody of the child,;then I will hear you." Again the respondent argued at some length,. his main-.points being that the petitioner had broken an order of the Court by taking the child out of New Zealand, and "that during three years of the alleged five years' desertion his wife had lived in England, the proceedings being taken after her return to New Zealand. His Honour several times directed respondent's attention to the'jury's find-ing;-and to the'fact that the'petitioner's story had been believed rather than that .of.-the ..res-pendent.-Foreman read further correspondence, and handed in several letters, and when his remarks at length became somewhat pointed, he was ordered by his Honour to "Sit down" "I am not going to listen to all these irrevelant remarks." said his Honour. The suggestion was. then made by the respondent that the jury's verdict was against.the.weight of evidence. "Cannot you adjourn this case," he askod, "so as to give me an opportunity —". His Honour : "No! I canuot adjourn it." Respondent stated that ho would not. be so foolish as to ask the Court to give him custody of the child. "What I ask is this: lam prepared to submit an oft'p.r of anything up to £100 per year for the future support of the child, to be paid by. the Public Trustee, in whose hands it will be-placed. 1' ■ His Honour: "Where are you goinff to get the money?"—'' From Home." "Whose money?"—"My own money." This prompted his Honour to remark that somo of the money might be utilised in making, good the thefts for which he had been commit.ted. RESPONDENT'S OFFER. Another proposition made by the respondent was as follows :—"That T-will support my .child up to the age of 16 yearn, and at that time funds will lie paid into the hands of the Public Trustee sufficient to ensure a college education for three years. Then she will be 19, and a sum of £400 will be in tho hands of tho Public Trustee to give her a start in life. I will find these monies. On the promise that I will keep to these conditions, I would ask the Court to place the child in the custody of a, third person, preferably the Church of England . Home, where she is already, an agreement.to bo made to prevent the child being taken from, the' Dominion. If. afteratime, I fail to'do as promise, my wife should immediately apply to r.he Court and have- the child given to her unconditionally. All 1 live .for is that little girl,'.'.-he..concluded..'. "If you' take her from me you might just as weil 'leave" me where I am (in prison)

Whatever I may have been, or may have done, your Honour, you have got a different man before you to-day Wherever the child goes, after I am out of prison, I shall go too, even if it is to the other side of the world. I wiJl not recognise any man who tries to take my flesh and blood from me."

Mr. Mazengarb briefly replied, and his Honour granted a decree absolute, but reserved decision on the custody of the child.