A SCANDALOUS CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10660, 31 May 1913, Page 5

A SCANDALOUS CASE.

Per Press Association. Auckland, May 30. “Nothing in the annals of the Court could ho more extraordinary,’’ was the remark made by Justice Edwards at the fSnpreme Court today, when delivering his _ judgment in the divorce suit in which Robert Henderson petitioned for a decree nisi against his wife Bmilie Jeanio Henderson, on the ground of misconduct, Thomas George Dereuzy being cited as co-respondent.' The case was beard at the November sittings of the Court, and His Honour said he would take time to consider his decision.

1 In the course of his judgment, I His Honour made some very scathing criticisms regarding the conduct of the parties concerned in the case. After remarking on the fact that the jury had found that the petitioner and respondent had keen guilty of collusion and connivance, he read a remarkable 'letter written by the petitioner to the respondent which had been put in as evidence during the hearing of the case. In the epistle the writer complained that he was financially embarrassed: ‘‘l want to go south. I need a suit. I have to pay £5 to and £3 to ■ — the letter continued, “and how am I going to get money for our divorce? You mu.nt'help me in every possible way to get some money. If you see T. G. (referring to co-respondent) tell him I know of his .feelings towards you. If to make | it worth while, tell himgl will make tit possible for him to help you. If I T. G. were to come over and stop the | night with us or get a house or suitable apartments I of course will 1 not be supposed “to have seen you. ’’ The ;writer urged that everything ! should be kept quiet in view of the j divorce case proceedings. “This ! was a disgraceful endeavour on the J part of the petitioner to sell his own | wife for his own ends, to make | own wife an agent for entering into j a disgraceful bargain,” commented f the judge. Among tba extraordinary incidents was that respondent pretended -.that she bad been confined. She borrowed, begged, stole or bought someone else’a baby, which she ’’passed off sometimes as her own, and sometimes as the corespondent’s. Ultimately the petitioner endeavoured to obtain the sum of £BO from the co-rspsoudenfc as expenses he had been put to in ushering the child into the world. Some time later he accompanied his wife to Princess Street, and waited outside the office of co-respondent for three-quarters of an hour while the woman was in there ostensibly collecting £3O, and yet petitioner asked mo to believe that he did not know by his action iie was conniving at misconduct between the parties! Man is frail, and woman unfortunately is frail, too, and I am opposed to keeping persons together when it is better that they should part. There are cases in which parties have been divorced after misconduct on the part of either husband or wife, and have thereafter lived reputable lives, and have been the parent?, of respectable children. This is not the case in the present instance, however. A man such a? petitioner is absolutely unfitted to be the husband of any woman. The woman undoubtedly was guilty of misconduct during the earlier married life of the parties, but the man’s after conduct wrs as disgraceful as it could be. Am I bound because the woman wenc wrong to grant the relief of this Court to the man who has licenced his wife to compromise diersclf with co-respon-dent in order to profit by it? The roan who has made his wife an agent in this disgrace! -il transaction? I think not. A petitioner who claims this Court’s jurisdiction, must have do, n i .*• 1 I without hesitation such abuse will not bo tolerated in the Court where I preside until a higher tribune has held that it must bo tolerated. ” in dismissing the petition without costs His Honour added that he would not allow the co-ivspondout costs as his conduct, although act ;;o disgusting petitioner’s, calls;,! for the strongest condemnation. Neither would respondent be alio wee! costs.