A PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11825, 30 November 1901, Page 2 (Supplement)

A PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE

REMARKABLE EVIDENCE.

Litigants whose affairs created a greab amount of public interest a few years ago in Melbourne appeared in new roles at the Divorce Court a few days ago, before Mi-. Justice Hood. Proceedings, it will be remembered, were taken against the guardians of Georgii'.a Wat-sou, daughter of the late Mr. .J. IS. Watson, a wealthy Bendigc-jdaa, to compel them to consent to her marriage with Paul Kitz, wir.e merchant, of Beurkestreet. After a protracted hearing the suit failed, but the parties were subsequently married.

Mrs. Khz now sues for divorce, on the ground of desertion. The petition set forth that the parties were married at 437 Bourke-street, Melbourne, in July, 1891, and that since 1838 lespondent had" wilfully deserted petitionee without just cause for three years and upwards. Respondent admitted the marriage, but denied desertion. Mr. Duffy and/Mr. Power, instructed by Dr. MTnerney, appeared for the petitioner; and Mr. Woo If and Mr. Williams, instructed by Messrs. Hamilton, Wynne, and Riddel], for the respondent.

Mr. Duffy stated that the case presented some extraordinary features. For a little while after the marriage the parties lived together unhappily. Respondent then started going away for long periods, without telling petitioner where lie wa: going. From two or three years after the marriage up to the present time they had hardly ever been together. Two children had been horn of the marriage, and under a will respondent was entitled to receive certain money for their maintenance. He had been in the habit of using the money for his own purposes, and petitioner was obliged to keep them out of her own income.

Petitioner stated that about twelve months after the marriage respondent began to absent himself from her. That was in 18S2. He would simply say that he was " going away." Sometimes: he was absent for a wee) - - sometimes for three weeks. He said his nerves wanted bracing up. In 1894 he commenced taking trips to England. On the first occasion she asked him why he was going, and he said the change would do him good. It was arranged that ske should follow him in a fortnight, snd>lie did so. Thev never travelled together, as they did not think it was good for them. She found him in a hydropathic establishment in England. They did not live together in England. In 1895 they returned to Victoria, and he lived at Brighton. About that time he contracted a complaint, and went to live at several places in Victoria, and sold the house at Brighton, together with the furniture, which witness had bought, and kept the proceeds.

Mr. Duffy read extracts from several letters written by respondent to petitioner in 1896, addressed from Cowes, Drysdale, and Kyneton. Respondent, after addressing petitioner in terms of affection, said: —

"My brain won't stand much strain or anxiety in my present state. I look perfect, ly well in the face, but am all wrong in the nerves. Even in London I would "go bung" from time to time. I will have to go under hydropathic treatment in London again. I wish to die without doing it myrelf. - ' I cannot live with you. yet I cannot live without you. Oh, that I had never been born, to cause such misery to myself and others. I am more like a child than a man. It is not your fault. You are'noble minded and trua as steel."

The writer made numerous references to the, distress which his complaint caused him. Petitioner, continuing her evidence, said respondent had threatened to take her life. On one occasion he loaded a revolver, and on another locked the door of their room while he had a razor in his hand. She threatened to scream and he opened the door. In February, 1897, she went to England with her children and a nurse. He followed her in another steamer., and they met in London, where they stayed at hotels, occupying separate apartments', till he went to live at a provincial hydropathic establishment. When they had been in England seven months he suggested that they should return to Victoria. They did so, and lived in separate rooms at the George Hotel, St. Kilda. A few days after their arrival at the hotel ho asked her to go to a solicitor's office and sign a deed of separation for six mouths. She said ho would consent if he let her have the money to which the children were entitled. He consented to that, and she signed the agreement. Then he disappeared suddenly, and sifter a search witness found him at Kyte's Baths, in Spring-street. He stated that he was going to England, and that if she followed him he would return to Victoria, as he did not wish to live with her. She accompanied him to Adelaide, and saw him leave for England. When the agreement expired she went to England. Her brother-in-law, Mr. W. Murdoch, the well-known cricketer, engaged rooms for her in London. Her husband came to the rooms and said, "I've not coma to see you ; I hate the sight of you ; I don't want to see vou any more. I came to see the children.? I won't live with you any more." They had another meeting of a similar character in London. In March this year witness came to Melbourne. She tried to find her husband but did not succeed, and had not seen him again till she saw him in Court that day. Cross-examined by' Mr. WooLf, petitioner said she was aware when she last returned to Melbourne that her husband's address was Chancery Lane. She did not go to see him because she was ill. but she sent her brother-in-law, who returned and said he was told Mr. Kitz was out of town. She would not be surprised to hear that he had been in Chancery Lane every day. Witness had a private income of £2000 under her father's will, "and it was a very good thing that she had." (Laughter.) Mr. Woolf read a number of letters sent by petitioner and her solicitors to respondent, and put many questions to witness with the object, he said,, of showing that if there was any desertion it was on petitioner s, and not on respondent's, part. Mr. 'Woolf: When you went to London did you write to Mr. Murdoch or to Messrs. Mllwraith, M'Eacliarn, and Co. to take rooms for you at Montague Mansions, and say tint you did not wish to see vour husband'.''

Petitioner: I don't; remember. Did you decline to answer your husband'* letters because you wanted a divorce? 1 don fc remember.

Did you, when you were in Japan, direct your mother to offer your husband £150 a year it he would consent to a divorce'' I don't remember.

His Honor: Do von mean to say that your memory is so very bad. Petitioner : My memory is very bad Air. Woolf proceeded to read a letter referring to the offer, but His Honor ruled that it was not admissible. Mr. Woolf then submitted that there was no cause No Court, he said, could grant a divorce on the uncorroborated evidence of an interested His Honor- Where is that ruling from? Anh ,}>'' I underst °od that it was the a a (j or divorce proceedings His Honor : I ,! 11 not stop at her evideuce. Mr. Woolf stated that during the three C" '-i': tbc s!le-"5 !le -"- cl desertion respondent bad written affectionate letters to petitioner, which were in evidence. Petitioner had not replied to those letters joumiL" 1 ' 11101 ' hearing of the case was ad-