THE WILKIE DIVORCE CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2430, 10 October 1900, Page 11

THE WILKIE DIVORCE CASE.

A STORY OF MARITAL INFELICITY.

The Wilkio divorce suit, heard in Melbourne by the Chief Justice, proved about a record for Victoria in point of length. The petitioner, Edith Wilkie, of St. Hilda, sought the dissolution of her marriage with Adam Wilkie, contractor, of Fordell, New Zealand, on the grounds of habiLual drunkenness! cruelly, and adultery. Petitioner told a somewhat pitiful story. They were married at Auckland in 18E6, and afterwards went to Otaki, where respondent was more often drunk than sober. When she was about to become a mother he compelled her to chop, wood. When unable to get drunk he drank fcauco, yeast, and sometimes, vinegar. More than Oi:c3 hp diove her clone to the edge of a stopiD cutting, and on one' occasion remarked, "' When you are ready anxTl am tired of you I'll tip you over there." She wrote to James Wilson, respondent's brother-in-law, who kept a hotel, lequcstaig him not to sell her husband any more liquor, and in tho course of ihe same letter said, "My life hore i-; hell, tied Io a man with whom I have no foaling in coumnu, a low 'drunkard. Illgotten gains will not do you much good." In his reply Wilson raid ho would tise hia own discretion to whom he .sold liquor. He told her she had a legal remedy, and finally added, "If you cannot iv.akh your home sufficiently attractive to keep your husband thore that is your fa alt, and with regard to your remark* about being tied to him, I think if I were in his place 1 would not put any obstacle-! in the wav of your releasing the tie." At one time she was so harassed by the disrespect of her servant •» and the drunken habits of hei* husband and his associates that she determined to commit suicide, and had poured out some poison. Her sister-in-law prevented her taking it. After leaving New Zealand they went to Perth, and came to Melbourne in 1893. His habits had become more disgusting than ever. Later, he went to New Zealand, »and for certain reasons after he came back she wrote accusing him of immornlity, adding, " Hanging is too good .for men like you, the worst kind of murderers." Respondent emphatically denied the accusation. Mr Purves submitted petitioner to searching cross-examination, in the course of which she admitted she met respondent through a matrimonial agency. From firsfc to last he might have- given her £26,000. ' Under further cross-examination by Mr Purves, petitioner admitted that respondent gave hey £7000 on leaving Perth, with which to buy a house for herself and children. She bought a houf^e at St. Kilda, and spent £700 on a piano, organ, etc., to make it comfor.toble. She took money gifts from him, because she knew if she did not he would have drunk them. A month before he went to England he gave hey £5000 more. "And he could well afford it," she said, with a toss of her head; "ho had a hundred ihonf&nd." She had reproached respondent, and he offered her the £5000 to make it up. She had since had £10 000, and smaller sums. She thought she might as well get rome thing out of him, as well as the hotelkeepers. — (Laughter.) Speaking of what he would do to get a drink, petitioner said she had seen him stand with his mouth wide open whilst May Williams (peti tioncr's companion) threw little balk of paper at him. — (Renewedlaughter.) Counsel subscqiiently asked: " Now, isn't it a fact that you plied him with drink in order that you might extort money from him?" Petitioner (indignantly) : "No ; I always tried to keep him away from drink." Having a suspicion that respondent had left her out of his will, she taxed him with it. She added : "He told iao if he died before me, and if I married again, I should not get anything. I don't like that." (Laughter.) Counsel (jocularly) : " You wanted to have another marilaradvenlure? " Petitioner: "I did not think it mattered to him what I did after lie was dead." Subsequently, to make herself safe, she got £10,000 out of him to invest. Altogether, she got £22,500, but the £5000 she paid for Oberton. was a bad spec. In answer to further questions, &ho told of respondent contimiallv drinking champagne. If he could not get corks pulled for him, he knocked the tous off the bottle-'. Finally, she admitted that her courting and marriage took about four days. The respondent, Adam Wilkie, denied emphatically his wife's allegations of drunkenness and cruelty. After maJJng good profits on his first railway contracts, he wrote to a matrimonial agent in Auckland to advertise for a wife. As a result he heard from petitioner, and subsequently they met, agreed to marry, and went to live at Otaki. Although he had drinks occasionally . he was always fit to attend to his business. He did not drink sauce from the bottle when he could not get; liquor, although he occasionally took a. snoonf ul in water as a kind of pick-me-up — (Laughter.) He once took a nip from a bottle of brandy used for cooking purposed, and his wife hit him over the head wiih the bottle, so he ouietly took her up in his arms and dropped her in the kitchen. — (Much laughter.) On the Southern Cross to Coolgarclie line witness and his brother made a profit of between 150,000 and £160.000, and witness's share was close upon £80.000. When the extension of the line to Kalgoorlie was opened, witness's firm offered to give £200 to the banquet expenses if 40 tickets were given them for Government officials. — (Laughter.) "And were you drunk on that occasion? " asked Mr Purves. " I was pretty full up on the firsfc day," responded witness, "but not on the other days " In a word, respondent denied his wife's allegations of habitual drunkenness, uneleanlinoss, and ill-treatment. [A cable lias informed us thtit a decree nisi was granted on the ground of the husband's adultery.]

" HUNYADI JANOS."— Professor Viuchow, as one of the first to recognise the value of this popular Aperient Water, testifies to its having given him invariably satisfactory results. He considers it " one op the most valuable OF THE CURATIVE AGENTS AT OUR DISPOSAL.'* Sold eveiywbwot