DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. Thursday, April 24

Otago Witness, Issue 2511, 30 April 1902, Page 13

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. Thursday, April 24

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and a jury of 12.) GOHE V. GORE AND STEWART. A. husband's petition for divorce. Mr S. Solomon appeared for the petitioner Wm. Henry Goie, of Wingatui; Mr A. R. Barclay for the respondent, Elizabeth Gore. The co-respondent, John Stewart, of Duntdm, labourer, was not represented. Mr Solomon said the story it was his duty to lay before the court that day was a \ - eiy sad one, and one that vividly showed how very dreadful and disastrous, not only to health and body, hut to all happiness, the abuse of drink might be. The petitioner and the respondent were married on the 31st March, 1888. The petitioner was the son of highly-respected people in Dunedm, his father being Mr James Gore. The respondent was a highly-respected young girl — an eligible and attractive girl in every sen&e of the word. They were married in Dunedin, and had three little children. They lived perfectly iiappy for a little time, until unfortunately the curse of craving for drink seized the young woman, and gradually it had undermined her, body and soul. It had become little less thin a disease with the poor woniar, and really one could not help feeling that, to a certain extent, she could not help the way she had given way to the curse. Xo one was sorrier for the fact than her husband, but however that might be, the results that had arisen from the woman's dreadful propensity for drink were such that after 12 or 14 years the husband was compelled to ask the court to break the bonds that bound them together. Their family hi&toiy, from the time the trouble arose, Had been simply dreadful. Year by yeai it had got worse, until jt culminated that day. As might be expected, the woman, through giving way to drink, became unable to attend to her household duties, became quarrelsome, nervous, and irritable, and the consequence was that she and her husband begin to quaire). Desperate attempts were made to patch up the differences and to persuade the woman to leave off drinking. For a time it was likely the attempts would be successful. The little children were made the means of bringing them together, but at last there was an open rupture, and the woman, in a drunken state, lan away from the house. She wa = ultimately brought back, and, begging for forgiven c«, the husband took her back. This went on lor foul o> five yeais, but tlic scenes became so dreadiul that he (learnc-d <_oun«e!) was compelled to «rlvj = c the husband that the bt"-* thing to do would bf to lefuse to lake h<>r back any tnorp. The- conserjmnce, inevitably. would be that the woman would have to go to the magistrate and explain her position, and tho husband wou'd have to piovide her with means to keep hers")f The woman came before Mr Carc-w =ix or seven years, and an order «a= made that thr> hu-*baud "hould pay «-o much a week She \« a^ 1 viug iepaiately from him at that xmic Hii Honor When was that ' Mr Barclay In 1896 Mr Solomon (contnmiii") said thut s vc that date the woman had from tinx to t,inp goiiG back to her home art! the liu-band, for the sake of thp children had t.ikm lm I).' k Tie lived at Wingatui, vhci,- h, hrotho- h.,d brnkwoik^ and he vn>- rmplrvod there llu 3wd had t'i» call '' tlie liuldici: on his fchoii'aors n, n ):, v.oii. 'o /i.*nii 'o and v .is, quite u'iil>'p |c copo v. i'li tii<* ta-k. ard corr-e-r,'U!»Milv V" h«A tflk.-n 'nei li.tr k from U-re to time, l'nucie:, hei h;.li'"o h^ri :• >' n, r-o until f-'i" tß'iu it lait b foic tl c n'l i nij""-trit r () f the lev .. Mr Guium He ika'ip) a,.m~ -1) c:-u'« "in tlie poj'tio ' to Mi I,' •■t.nij, a-iii stat^l to him, in tl " BiPCic r 1 Ai • >*, ouuii jnd ho" hubl "lit', t'wt th" bi'-. ; h ij; t- to would be ir jpt i -iinij'e fonr> of -p^ji^io-, ftA I^mvi/icd. low ib« Igcri3iat. ; /M 3tn h~..*,m U-atioxiA

and the magistrate gTanted a summary order of separation, and ordered the husband to pay 5s a week towards the wife's support. There were two reasons why such a small sum was given — that it was as much as the husband could afford, as he had to keep himself and the three children, and it was felt desirable by the magistrate that the woman should have as little money as possible, because if she had money she immediately spent it in drink. The money lia<3 all along been paid by the husband. Things went from worse to worse, and ultimately the man, from information supplied to him, could have no sort of doubt whatever that his wife, by this time, had become not only a drunkard, but something a good deal worse. He had made inquiries, and the result showed that the young woman, who a few short years before was a respectable, reputable member of society, had become nothing more than the constant associate of piostitutes and thieves. On one occasion she was traced to a brothel in the south end of the town. Evidence m support of the petitioner's case was given by William Henry Haydon, jun. (clerk in the office of Solomon and Gascoigne, solicitors), William Henry Gore (the petitioner), David Goldsmith (saddler), Frank Lawless (steward), James Kennedy (acting-detective), Constable Osbome, and John M'Donald (cleik). Mr Barclay, in opening the case for the . lespondent, said no doubt they would all have I been glad to have been spared the painful duty of inquiring into this case, but it was rendered necessary in the administration of justice that i it should be gone into. The story told by f the respondent w*rs* different from the story by | her husband. It must be feared, he admitted, j that the -woman was of- intemperate habits. i She said, however, that that "was not the cause, or the first cause, of her troubles with her husband. Her husband's conduct towards her was I not good. ! Mr Solomon • I must object to this. It is not open to respondent to prove that i affiimatively. By the rules that govern this court at the present time this must be pleaded. j If the defendant relied on it for a defence that her husband's conduct has conduced to her misconduct, it nniot be pleaded to give us the right to meet it. Mr Barclay (continuing) said it must be admitted that the intemperate habits of respondent alluded to was the cause of quarrels, j although there could be no use in going into those quarrels. His Honor The jury would probably under-ft-uul there would be two sides to the question. There is no reason in the present case to fix the blame either on one party or the other. It is not material. Learned counsel then proceeded to give respondent's version of an affair referred to in the Fernhill Club's grounds. In conclusion, he referred to the fact that there had been about a dozen cases between the parties in the Magistrate's Court, which culminated in a ■separation order on the grounds of cruelty, and respondent was allowed the sum of 5s per week. Respondent would stoutly deny adultery with anyone at any time, and learned counsel would poiut out that it was possible for both men and women to be addicted to drink and yet to be in other respects perfectly honest, moral, [ straightforward, and in every other way admirable persons. Evidence was then given by respondent. Mr Solomon having leplied, His Honor summed up, and stated that the only issue to go before the jiuy was " Did the respondent on- February 22, 1902, commit adultery with one John Stewart? " The Jury retired at 3.10 p.m., and returned in 10 minutes with an affirmative answer to the issue submitted. His Honor granted a. decree nisi, to be made absolute in three Tnonths. Mr Barclay asked that the scale on which coats were to be allowed should be fixed. His Honor accordingly allowed costs on the lowest scale. WALLACE V. WALLACE. A petition by a husband for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of desertion. Mr D. Stewart appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of respondent. Mr Stewart said that the parties were married in Sydney on November 7, 1894. At the time of the marriage it was understood that they were to come to New Zealand, and reside on the petitioner's father's farm at Hillend. They left Sydney about a fortnight after the marriage, and lived at Hillend for about 12 months. At the end of that time respondent's father came over on a visit. He asked petitioner to allow his wife to go home and see her mother. Petitioner consented, on the under- , standing that she was to come back in six weeks, or two months at the moat. Up to that time there had been no ill-feeling between the parties, and the wife had not complained of any unpleasantness, although it was suggested in a. letter sent from Sydney afterwards that she considered her mother-in-law had not treated her kindly. A correspondence, mo3tly friendly, went on between the two, and petitioner wrote beseeching his wife to come back. She never refused to come back, but continued to stay away ali the same. About three years ago his client went to Sydney to get a definite a.nswer. An appointment was made, but respondent did not keep it, and a. letter was handed petitioner instead, saying that she would not return to New Zealand. Learned . counsel submitted that there could be no question that desertion began at the end of two months after her leaving New Zealand. Five j years had now elapsed. His Honor : You will probably have some , cases to cite on th« question of desertion? j Mr Stewart replied that nearly all the cases on the subject were wife against husband. His Honor remarked that the same principle ■would apply. Mr Stewart, continuing, said there was the case of Smith v. Smith, 58 " Law Times," p. 639, and Stickland v. Stickland, 35 "' Law Times," p. 767. In the present case he was prepared to contend that the period of desertion began when the wife outstayed her leave. Learned counsel then proceeded to read from the correspondence that passed between tho parties. . __ j Evidence was given by William Irwin Wallace (petitioner) and Robert Wallace (petitioner's father). j His Honor I 'think tho correspondence 'hows there was no intention on the part of the respondent from pietty nearly the beg'tining of her absence to return to cohabitation. There is no doubt she has been absent for more than five years against the will of ( the petitioner, and that the has no intention | of returning to cohabitation, nor do I think '-he had any f=uch intention during any part of the time of her absence. Decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months. *DAM V ADAM AND LASSEX. A husband's petition for divorce. Mr A S. Adams appeared for the petitioner, Oeor»e Simpson Adam, of Cavereham. There iva- no appearance on behalf of the respondent oi the co-iespondeijt, Fritz Martin Lassen, o' Anowtowii. Mr AiUra- 'aid the pctiu.on was one for dissc'ut'on of marriage on the ground of adultery Ly the wif<\ The parties were married on the Ith April, 1690, at Ravensbourne, at the; house | c~ the icspondent'& father, and there were two (.hi'dif-ii now living as the issue of the mar- ' 3.dp,p. In March, 1001, the petitioner Lad i.jioii to suvect his wife'fa fidelity, and made j certdii ,i mi.,i»s, v. lnch resulted in nothing (■cOmtP, Ivt i:i Novembci last a document ' fell into 'i =; '-"..vl- whic'i led to further mauirie* v.v.6. fco tha rfi&covorv of facia wKinb. went

cl«»i-ly if, p.»»e tha^ ihe wYe had been fol somo tioj» «j,rryin o on an in. proper corrcspondc^L* anfl Wjal she had been guiHy of adultery with tin co-respondent. On tlj 6th of that ,-nonth the paHtione-r had a holiday from his -work, and, returning home earliei than usual, found under the door a. letter ir the handwriting of the co-respondent, addressed to the respondent. The letter was: "Do not write, too dangerous, will not b« at home, take warning, and clo not write foi some time to come. "Will be disastrous; sus« picion aroused." That letter caused him to make diligent inquiry, and following on it he had a conversation with his wife, when certain admissions were made by her. Counsel proceeded to read the letters that had passed between the parties, and also one from the corespondent to the firm of Adams Bios. This letter of Lassen's, learned counsel contended, was an admission on the part of the corespondent. His Honor agreed that the letter was a distinct admission. Evidence was given by Charles Cole «(W clerk) and George Simpson Adam (petitioner). His Honor said the co2Tcspondence showed admission on the part of both parties, and granted a decree nisi, to take effect in threi montn3. The court adjourned at 5.5. p.m.