A BORROWED BABY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3946, 31 May 1913, Page 7

A BORROWED BABY.

EXTRAORDINARY DIVORCE CASE. STRONG COMMENTS BY MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS. COLLUSION AND CONNIVANCE.

[PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.]

AUCKLAND, May 30. . “Nothing in the annals of the Court could be more extraordinary,” was the remark made by Mr Justice Edwards at the Supreme Court today, when delivering liis judgment in a divorce suit, in which Robert Henderson petitioned for a decree nisi against liis wife, Emilie Jeanie Hem derson, on the grounds of misconduct, Tlios.' George de Rentzy being cited as co-respondent. The case was heard at the November sittings of tile Court, and his Honor said he. would take time to consider'his decision. In the course of liis judgment, his Honor made some very scathing criticism regarding the conduct of the parties concerned in the case. After remarking on the fact that the jury had found that petitioner and respondent had been guilty of collusion and connivance, lie read a remarkable letter written by petitioner to respondent, which had been put in as evidence during the hearing of the case.

In the epistle the writer complained that lie was financially embarrassed, .and continued: “I want to go South. I need a suit. I have to pay £5 to and £2 to . and how am 1 going to get money for our divorce ? You must help me in every possible way to get some, money. If you see ‘T.G.’ (referring to co-respondent), tell him I know of his feelings towards you. If lie promises to make it worth while, tell him I will make it possible for him to help you. If ‘T.G.’ were to come over and stop, a night with us, or get a house or suitable apartments, I, of course, will not be surprised to have seen you.” The writer urged that- everything should be kept quiet in view of the divorce case proceedings. “This was a disgraceful endeavor on the part of petitioner to soil his own wife for liis own end, to make his own wife an agent for entering into a disgraceful bargain,” commented the Judge. Among the extraordinary in. cidents was that respondent pretended she had been confined. She borrowed, begged, stole, or bought someone else’s baby, which she passed off sometimes as her own and sometimes as the co-respondent’s. Ultimately petitioner endeavored to obtain the sum of £3O from the co-respondent as expenses she had been put to in ushering the child into the world. . Some time later petitioner accompanied his wife to Princes Street, and waited outside the office of co-respondent for threequarters of an hour while the woman was in there, ostensibly collecting £3O, and yet petitioner asked me to believe that he did not know that by his action he was conniving at misconduct between the parties. lam opposed to keeping parties together when it i.s better that they should part. There are cases in which parties have been divorced after misconduct on the part of either husband or wife, and have thereafter lived reputable lives, and have been parents of rspectable children. This is not the case in the present instance, however. A man such as petitioner is absolutely unfitted to lie the husband of any woman. The woman undoubtedly was guilty of misconduct during the earlier married life of the parties, but the man’s later conduct was as disgraceful as it could be. Am I bound, because the woman went wrong, to grant the relief of this Court to a man who has licensed his wife to compromise herself with co-respondent in order to profit by it—a man who has made his wife an agent in this disgraceful transaction? I think not. A petitioner who claims this Court’s jurisdiction must have clean hands. I sav without hesitation that such abuse will not be tolerated in a Court where I preside until a higher tribunal has held that it must be tolerated.”

In dismissing the petition without costs, liis Honor added that he would not allow co-respondent costs, as his conduct, although not so disgusting as petitioner’s, called for the strongest condemnation. Neither would respondent be allowed costs