WIFE'S CODE OF MORALS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 3, 19 August 1911, Page 6

WIFE'S CODE OF MORALS.

CURIOUS CASE IN SYDNEY. BANK MANAGER OBTAINS DIVORCE. An interesting case came before Mr Justice Gordon, sitting in divorce jurisdiction in Sydney last week, and was briefly reported by cable. The petitioner was John Alexander Cadcll, the son of a brewer. The respondent was Mary Georgina Elizabeth Cadcll, formerly Walker, and desertion was the ground upon which the divorce was asked for.

The petitioner, a branch manager for the London Bank of Australia, was represented by Mr Ciulcwis. Mr Cadell stated that he had boon in various banks in New South Wales and Queensland for a number of years past, and latterly had done eight

years’ duty in Newcastle, and was also some time in Sydney. He was married on June 9 th, 1892, at Townsville, Queensland, according to the rites of the Church of England. He and his wife lived happily together until about seven years ago, and one boy was born to thorn in 1896. The iirst time that he knew anything was wrong.-was when his wife told him, in 190!, that she had lost her affection for him, that she loved somebody else, and although she had the greatest regard for him she could not live with him any longer. It was a tremendous shock to him, and when she said she would have to leave him Ire asked her, for the sake of the hoy, not to. “Surely your affection , for the child will keep you from going awaj from me?” he said, but she icplied that it could not he helped; she would have to go. Soon afterwards she left. Petitioner (lit! not know that she was going, hut she left a letter for him. That was in May, 1904. Subsequently’ho ascertained that she vent to Brisbane. He wrote to her there, and prayed of her to come hack, but she replied saying that she could not. She sent to him for money, and he sent her three 'or four pounds at a time on various occasions. He continued to do that until about four years ago, hut she had never been hack to him. She came down to Sydney from Brisbane.

Mr Curlewis: L think, if his Honor would let you, that you would like to say something about the moral character of your wife.

Petitioner: Yes; I should like to. His Honor: You make no suggestion against horP Petitioner (emphatically) : Not the slightest, your Honor. Not the slightest.

His Honor; I gathered that from the letters. But why didn’t you take these proceedings beforeP Petitioner: Well, J hoped that she would return to me. Mr T. D. O’Sullivan, a Newcastle solicitor, who had known the parties for many years, said that after Mr and Mrs Cade!l separated he met Mrs Cadoll one day in Sydney and she spoke to him. She said she could not live with Mr Cadoll any longer, because she had formed an affection for another man, a doctor, and she did not think it was right for her to continue, living with Mr Cadoll when

she had the feeling still in her heart. She seemed to fool the breaking ol her marriage tics very much, but said she saw no" other course open to her. Witness said to her then that he thought even at that late pci iod Mr (.’adoll would be willing to take her back and start live afresh lor the boy’s sake, and for his own sake and hers. But she would not return toMm. (She re iterated that she could not get over the old affection. >S!ic was a woman of very strong character. Afterwards she went awry to Vancouver, and he had had letters from her in which she rani that it was because of the high, moral view she. look of the relations that should exist between, husband and wile that

she had taken the step she did. In that better she also said that she recognised that her husband had been bolding bis band in the hope that she would return, but while she thoroughly appreciated his kindly attitude and had every belief iu his faithfulness to her, she could do no more. She could not go back to him, much as she regretted having to hold to her decision. In another communication she expressed her thanks for the courteous way in which the papers wore served on her in Vancouver, ana to the attorneys in Australia *«r obtaining such a good firm of .solicitors in Vancouver to deal with the business. She said that siio bad fust met one of. the partners of the firm socially, and he had dropped her a note asking'her to call- at the oiii-rc.

When she went there the papers were handed i,o lie; - quietly and nicely. Ilia Honor < in granting a decree nisi, returnable in six months, said: “It seems to me tliai the respondent in tiiis case has taken • a very high moral view Of the proper position a wife should occupy towards a husband. She has decided that as she had lost her aifccliou for him it was not right that she should continue to live with him. There is not the slightest suggestion, although she had lost her alloctiou for him and formed an affection tor another man, that there has been even the slightest immorality or impropriety on Mrs Cade IPs part. She loved someone else, and that having come about she decided that she ought tV> go away—not to live with the other man—hut just to he away from the husband whom she did not love. Although she could not control her affections, she could control her actions. But she has committed an offence against the divorce law, and 1 must grant a decree.”