DIVORCE SCANDAL.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19032, 9 June 1924, Page 11

DIVORCE SCANDAL.

HUSBANDS WHO SUFFER. BLACKMAILED BY THEIR WIVES. There is no greater scandal connected with our divorce laws than the “spiting” and blackmailing of petitioning husbands by their wives, says a London paper. This arises from the provision that a husband who seeks a divorce must pay the costs of his wife’s answer, and consists in putting forward a bogus defence, either out of revenge or to compel him to come to terms. Usually an unscrupulous wife merely aims at making her husband’s petition as expensive as possible. She compels him to pay into court some hundreds of pounds to meet her costs, and at the eleventh hour withdraws, giving him a walk-over. Many a man of comparatively small means thus pays a big price for his freedom.

But a bogus defence is often carried to a much greater length. In many instances a wife invents a series of atrocious charges, all of which are set out in a lengthy document, for the purpose of forcing her husband to give her money to drop them. A WOMAN’S TAUNT. Such women know that, as the charges have not to be supported by oath, they cannot be prosecuted for perjury, and that if their’ accusations have not the desired effect—if the husband refuses to be blackmailed—they can be dropped one by one, or in a mass, so they are safe anyhow.

A remarkable case occurred a few years ago. A man who had obtained his wife through a matrimonial agency discovered that she was a convicted thief, and a few months afterwards there came into his possession evidence that gave him ample grounds for petitioning for divorce. When he filed a petition, his wife laughed gaily. “It will be great fun,” she said. “Fancy all your friends knowing that you got your wife through a matrimonial agency!” The husband wineed. Noticing this, his wife immediately saw her woy dear, and she soon countered with a string of appalling charges, every one of them fabricated.

The husband’s solicitors endeavoured to reassure him, stating that she would not dare to swear to the charges, and that she was putting up a big “bluff.” But his wife’s move unmanned him, and in the end he settled £2OOO a year on her to withdraw.

Still more amazing was a case in which a retired officer was the victim. His wife, learning that she was being watched on his instructions, struck him with a horsewhip, and then, as a preparation for the inevitable, summoned him for assault. As she was able to bring forward witnesses who did not stick at perjury, he was cmviqted.

Shortly afterwards he filed a petition for divorce whereupon she played her trump card. This took the form of a list of appalling counter charges, ineluding a number of allegations of cruelty. It completely beat her husband, who paid her £lO,OOO to drop the charges. THE PRICE OF SILENCE. Not long ago a “vamp” was sentenced to penal servitude after she had turned to good account at least two petitions for divorce- Her first husband died about eighteen months after his divorce from her, and by then she had squandered the thousands she had wrung from him. Afterwards she married a cotton manufacturer, whom she eventually bled in exactly the same way,’only to a greater extent. In the case of her second exploit, petitioner’s solicitors discovered the woman’s recorod, and felt sure that, even if she had the audacity to swear to any of her charges, they would not only fail, but would be utterly discredited by the public. Yet the client insisted upon a settlement, because ho was afraid some odium might, cling to hint if any of the charges were published.