UNUSUAL DIVORCE

Evening Star, Issue 20253, 14 August 1929, Page 8

UNUSUAL DIVORCE

WIFE RETURNS TO HUSBAND ‘ HIS OFFENCES NOT CONDEMNED An unusual application for divorce came before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supremo Court morning- A decree nisi was made Jive years ago; the parties had since 1 lived together, and His Honour was asked to make the decree absolute. Jhe petitioner was Muriel Cora Forrester and the respondent John William Forrester. The facts of the application, as outlined by Mr E. J. Anderson, solicitor for the petitioner, were that a decree nisi was granted in 1924. The petitioner was later prevailed upon to return to the respondent, but after having lived with him again lor some time she was compelled to leave through fears for her own safety. It was now desired to, have the decree made absolute. Learned counsel submitted that there was no question of condonation, the matrimonial offences upon which the decree,was granted having been revived. He quoted cases in support of his contention, and produced _ for His Honour a letter from the Solicitor-Gen-eral bearing on tho matter. ■ The two children of tho marriage were with the respondent’s parents, who were looking after them well. The petitioner was working for her own livelihood, and was satisfied they were in tho best place for them. As long as she had reasonable access, she thought it was in the interest of the children to remain where they were. Petitioner stated in evidence that tho decree nisi, was granted in May, 1924. In August, 1924, a sister of tho respondent came to her and said the respondent was prepared to give up his drinking habits, and asked her to go back to him. -She did so, but after three mouths tho respondent ‘‘ broke out ” again. He assaulted,her in the street, tearing her clothes off and'striking her. Ho continued his drinking habits, and in 1926, after she had undergone an operation, ho dragged her out of bed and hammered her. In 1927 he pulled her out of bed just alter she was out of hospital, because sho would not give him money for more drink. At the end of 1927 the drunkenness and cruelty became worse. Had she known she could have left him’ without commencing fresh proceedings, sho would, have done,so earlier. After leaving him for a while .she went back, but she ultimately had to leave him in 1928. His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy: ‘‘The application of the is to have made absolute tho dissolution of her marriage with the respondent because the respondent had for four years and upwards been a habitual drunkard and been habitually guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner. After the decro nisi was made the petitioner was induced t> return to cohabitation with tho respondent, and her return to cohabitation and her cohabitation condoned tho previous matrimonial offence. Condonation is conditional upon forgiveness—forgiveness upon condition that the offending pari.v transgresses no more. Tho husband did not keep his promise to treat his wife properly, lint resumed his former drinking habits and continued to treat the petitioner with cruelty. His subsequent matrimonial ofiences revived tho matrimonial offence which had been condoned and placed the petitioner in tho same position in which she was when the decree nisi was mack'. The facts in this case were very properly laid before tho Solicitor-General by the solicitor for the petitioner, ami it appears from a letter placed before me that in this case the Solicitor-General has seen no necessity for intervention. The respondent has had due notice,ol the application that has been made to me to-day. Evidence given in open court clearly establishes the subsequent misconduct of the respondent. In Moore and Moore a similar case, a. decree absolute was made without the petition bei rg amended and without service. I propose to follow that case. There will the> cfore be a decree absolute. A' 1 the petitioner does not ask for the custody and control of the children of the marriage, no order is made as to custody and control.”