ANGLO-COLONIALS IN THE DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVIII, Issue 2726, 25 January 1896, Page 1 (Supplement)

ANGLO-COLONIALS IN THE DIVORCE COURT.

From Our Own Correspondent. BIEDEIiMANN v. BIEOERMANN. London, November 30.

I daresay a good many New Zealanders will remember Mr Joseph S. Biedermann and Anna his wife, who resided in the Colony during tho three years preceding 1887. AVell, on Saturday Mrs B. appealed to Mr Justice Gorrell Barnes to untie the matrimonial knot which bound her to Joseph S. on tire score of cruelty, adultery and desertion by tho man. The petitioner appeared in person and inflicted a lengthy statement on the Court, from which it appeared that she was married to Biedermann in August 1883, and went to New Zealand with him soon after. Tho parties resided there till 1887 and apparently were moderately happy. On their return to London Mrs B. was much annoyed by reports being in circulation to the effect that her marriage with Joseph was illegal. And her annoyance grew into distress when in spite of pleadings on her part Joseph refused to take the Double to contradict the gossips. 'This was cruel, but worse things followed. Anna wanted to go to the theatre one evening and asked her husband to take her. Instead of doing so he flow into a passion and took her by tho tiiroat, and but for tho timely appearance of the serving maid with tho after-dinner coffee, Mrs Anna believes her husband would have killed dier. Other allegations made by tho wife included sundry face shippings (which made her “ see fire"), wineglass throwings, &c. These things aggravated Mrs B.’s complaint (heart disease), but she put up with them until Joseph crowued his wickedness in September, 1893, by deserting her in favour of a Mrs Eowlor, and taking his furniture with him. The respondent failed to show up in Court, but bis counsel, Mr Bulkoly Jones, interposed to explain that he would not be able to put his client into tho witness-box. The petitioner, continuing, said that since Joseph’s desertion she had been very poor, and had been obliged to live in “dirty lodgings,” although, by a separation deed between them, her husband was bound to allow her .£4OO a year. Joseph stopped payment tho moment the order for alimony pendente lite was made. Medical evidence was tendered to prove the heart disease and the possibility of its having been aggravated by the husband's conduct, and the adultery and cruelty charges were substantiated by several witnesses.

No defence being offered, Mr Justice Barnes said, “There must be a decree nisi, with costs."

“ My Lord,” said Mrs Biedermann. “ ever since my husband left me, I have been followed and molested by the police." “Madame,” answered his Lordship, “I have nothing to do with that. You had better consult a solicitor.” “And what about my allowance ?” pleaded the lady. “See your solicitor,” answered Mrßarnes. “Oh, but I’ve done so well without one. I’ve done in two days what he could not do in two years,” remarked Mrs Biedermann, caustically. His Lordship smiled, but it was a smile with a doable meaning, and the usher interpreted it, “ This incident is now closed." So Mrs Biedermann was given the hint, and departed.

MURDOCK v. MURDOCK. Mr Murdock, of the publishing firm of J. T. Murdock and Co., of London and Melbourne, applied to Mr Justice Joune on Saturday for a divorce from his wife on the usual grounds, the respondent named being one Collins, a Brighton jeweller. The parties were married in 1882 and shortly after went out to Melbourne, the petitioner being anxious to make the most of the branch of the business there. In 1887 the parties came home for a. brief holiday- They returned to Melbourne, but in 1893 came back to the Old Country. Then it became desirable to dispose of the Melbourne business, and Mr Murdock went out to arrange matters. His wife, however, refused to accompany him. Owing to the bank failures he was absent over two years, but between him and his wife a most affectionate correspondence was kept up. When Murdock returned he found his wife living at Brighton, and it soon became clear to him that not only had his spouse given way to drink, but that she had been inuoh more intimate with Collins than was consistent with les convenances. The servants gossiped and betrayed their mistress, but the husband was loth to believe tho worst. One night, however, instead of going up to London as he intended, Murdock returned homo after half an hour’s absence and found Collins and Mrs Murdock together under compromising circumstances. There was a “ row royal" and Murdock kicked Collins out of the house. Then proofs of his wife’s infidelity tell into the husband’s hands and he at once instituted divorce proceedings. Justice Jeune considered the petitioner’s case strong enough for a decree nisi, and he also gave Mr Murdock custody of the children.