DIVORCE SCANDAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume LX, Issue 9722, 4 June 1924, Page 3

DIVORCE SCANDAL.

■ | HUSBANDS WHO SUFFER. • | BLACKMAILED BY THEIR j | WIVES. i j There is no greater scandal connectj ! ed with our divorce laws than the j ; “spiting” and blackmailing of peti- [ I tioning husbands by their wives, says [ i a London paper. . . [ j This arises from the provision' that I j a husband who seeks a divorce must j ' pay the costs of his wife’s answer, and consists in putting forward a bogus [ defence, either out of revenge or to j compel him to come to terms. ! Usually an unscrupulous wife mereS ly aims at making her husband’s petii tion as expensive as possible. She compels him to pay into court some i hundreds of pounds to meet her costs, and at the eleventh hbur withdraws, i giving him a walk-over. Many a man I of comparatively small means thus pays a big price for his freedom. • But a bogus defence is often car- ' •<5 ried to a much greater length. In • " many instances a wife invents a series of atrocious charges, all of which are > set out in a lengthy document, for •„V the purpose of forcing her husband to give her money to drop them. I A WOMAN’S TAUNT. Such women know that, as the charges have not to be supported by ■ oath, they cannot be prosecuted for perjury, and that if their accusations ' have not the desired elfect —if the husband refuses to be blackmailed—they can be dropped one by one, or in a mass, so they are safe anyhow. A remarkable case occurred a: few years ago. A man who had obtained his wife through a matrimonial agenev discovered that she was a convicted' thief, and a few months afterwards there came into his possession evidence that gave him ample grounds for-petitioning for divorce. When he filed a petition, his wife laughed gailv.' “It will be great fun,” she said. “Fancy all your friends knowing that you got your wife through a matrimonial agency!” The husband winced. Noticing this, his wife immediately saw her way clear,/ and she soon countered with a string of appalling charges, every one of them fabricated. _ . The husband’s solicitors endeavored to reassure him, stating that she 1 would not dare to swear to the zmt charges, and that she was putting up a big “bluff.” But his wife’s move a unmanned him, and in the end he settled £2OOO a year on her to withdraw. Still more amazing was a case m which a retired officer was the victim. His wife, learning that she wai being watched on his instructions, struck him with a horsewhip, and then, as a preparation for the inevitable, summoned him for assault. As she was able to bring forward witnesses who did - not stick at perjury, he was convicted. Shortly afterwards ho filed a petition for'divorce whereupon she played her trump card. This took the form iof a list of appalling countercharges, including a number of alle- i gatiens of cruelty. It completely bent her husband, who paid her £IO,OOO to drop the charges. THE PRICE OF SILENCE, Not long ago a “vamp” was sentenced to penal servitude after she had turned to good account at least two petitions for divorce. Her first husband died about eighteen months i after his divorce from her, and by then she had squandered the thousI ands she, had wrung from him. After- ] wards she married a cotton manu- | fact'Urer, whom she eventually bled | iu exactly the same way, only to a I greater extent. I In the case of her second exploit, a petitioner’s solicitors discovered the j !? woman’s record, and felt sure that, overt if she had the audacity to swear to any of her charges, they would not only fail, but would utterly discredited by the public. Yet the client S insisted upon a settlement, because lie j was afraid some odium might* cling j ‘ to him if - any of the charges were j I published.