THE EAREE DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1651, 21 October 1903, Page 23

THE EAREE DIVORCE CASE.

On Saturday morning Mr Justice Edwards heard a motion for a decree nisi by Mr Myers, on behalf of the petitioner in the Master ton divorce case of Percy George Wyndham Earee, Anglican clergyman v. Florence Georgina Dashwood Earee. This case was before the Court on September 15th. IGth and 17th, and a special jury found that the respondent had been guilty of adultery with William Hervey Noble, refrigerating engineer on the White Star liner Athenic, on April 6th and 7th, and exonerated the petitioner from certain charges made against him in the answer filed to the petition. Mr Morison, on behalf of the respondent, submitted that there were reasons why the decree should-not be granted ; and that if the Court decided to grant it there should be a permanent allowance for tho wife, in accordance with tho practice which obtains in England, and is recognised in New Zealand. Counsel proceeded to deal with the findings of the jury in the case, and pointed out that although the jury had found for the petitioner on the issues put to them, yet it was discretionary with the Judge to withhold granting a decree. He citod several authorities from decisions of t'he Probate and Matrimonial Division of the High Court cf Justice in England in support of his contention, and severely criticised live petitioner’s treatment of his wife on her return from England after an absence of some sixteen months.

His Honor observed that it was not tho conduct of a loving husband towards his young wife, after a long absence. to raise a row over her having breakfast in bed a few mornings after her return home. Mr Morison rejoined that had lie treated her with ordinary decency durimg the four days that intervened, she would never have gone Jjjfcek to Wellington. He argued tkafYif the decree were granted, trio present allowance of £2 per week made by the petitioner should be continued, as the respondent was without means and unable to earn her own living. Mr Myers said lie understood she was an expert needlewoman, and that £l5O had been collected for her in Master ton. His Honor: That won’t affect what the husband will have to do. Mr Morison disclaimed any knowledge of any attempt to assist her, except that if she would go Homo to her peoplo the parson’s friends were willing to help her to go. His Honor pointed out the unbearable nature of life in England for a woman in her position. He would not allow anything her friends might do to keep her from going farther down liill to affect him as regarded what the petitioner should do. Mr Morison intimated that ho would call the evidence of a lady with whom Mrs Earee had been living for the last month to show her unfitness to earn her own living. It was quite true that she was a good needlewoman, but he was informed she was too slow at the work to make a living .out of it. The petitioner had acted throughout with unparalleled heartlessness, and now, as far as this poor woman —who was the mother of his children-—was concerned,, she might go to the gutter. Counsel asked, in the event of the decree being granted, that the £2 a week alimony, which the husband had agreed to give and which would continue until the decree was made absolute, should be made permanent. She was a woman with regard to whom the greatest hopes might be entertained that she would regain her feet. He also asked that she snould have the custody of one of the children. His Honor asked did the respondent really want to keep this reverend gentleman? or did she want an allowance? Personally, he should have thought that the time had passed when anything might be hoped for from a continuance of the relationship of husband and wife bewe-en them. Mr Morison replied that his client was willing to continue it, she was so devoted to her children. If the decree were to bo granted though, she wanted an allowance. He (counsel) would prevent the divorce, if he could. His Honor remarked, in the course of further argument, that ho was not favourably impressed with tho manner in which the petitioner gave his evidence —on one or two occasions he equivocated. There was no doubt that the petitioner’s conduct on occasions did not contribute to a happy life. Mr Myers supported the granting of the decree, and opposed any allowance being made to the respondent after that. He also opposed costs being allowed her, as she had practically no defence to’the petition, and the allegations made by her were not proved. Dealing with the case, he observed that if the state of things disclosed were to be tolerated, the morals of the community would fall asunder. Mr Morison retorted that the morals of the community were not kept in order by the force of the divorce law. In the course of the arguments, reference was made to the petitioner’s connection with the cooking department of the household. His Honor jestingly suggested that

probably the petitioner was : a better cook than his wife. He expressed the opinion that a man should assist his wife to -do the housework.

Mr Myers argued at some length in reply to Air Morison, and referred to reported cases in support of his contentions.

His Honor pointed out that Air Morison said that if the petitioner had treated his wife properly after her return from England, she would not have gone down to Wellington again, and he had no doubt that was true. Dealing with tho petitioner’s attitude, he con-i sidered ho ought to havo asked his wife for an explanation or else he should have put the matter out of his mind and treated her as a wife should be treated by her husband after a long absence. Mr Morison called the evidence of a lady with who-m the respondent has been living, and who deposed she was morally, mentally and * physically weak. : She could do needlework, and do it beautifully ; but very slowly. Tho witness did not know r of any occupation at which Mis Earee could earn her living. Mr Myers asked to have the case adjourned so that he might consult the solicitor who was instructing him, Air Beard, of Alastorton, as to whether ho would wish to call rebutting evidence on tho point of respondent’s capacity to earn a living. The case was accordingly flowed to stand over, Air Myers undertaking to notify the Court when he had received a reply.