SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1928, 10 December 1913, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

THE FULLER DIVORCE CASE. QUESTION OF ALIMONY. Another stago of tho divorce suit, Fulier v. I 1 uller, was reached in tho Supremo Court yesterday morning, before liis Honour 3l r . Justice Chapman. On behalf of the petitioner. John Fuller, inn.. Mr. J . \oung applied to iiave t'fco dccree nisi made absolute. Lie also applied ior im order giving petitioner tlw custody of tlw child. M'illortl, for respondent, cons,erucd to tho issue of a dccree ftbsoi ii I 1 I' cn » s «'tcd thus- petitioner should have tho custody of the child, the question or Uio access by respondent to \r v V '* ius Hoilour. I ■' VT S rc , nla i'!ipd that Jio .had unUersxood that tho question of access to im; child by Sirs. Fuller was to bo loft entirely with tlw petitioner. Mr. \\ ilfortl: There is 110 arrangement. It was broken ofl a few minutes ago. Ifis Honour granted tho dctreeabsoImo, giving petitioner tho custody of tho child, power bain > reserved to tho Court to make, orders as to respondent having access to tile child.

Mr. Young then asked that tho respondMit's_ petition for custody of the cluld bo dismissed. Argument ensiled, when Mr. Wilford applied for eosts in regard to the respondent's position, Mr. Young _otoimi.no: flint the petition was discontinued, not as tlia result of ail arrangement, but because Mr. Wilford had abandoned it.

Mr. Wilford: Because of certain things wliich liad happened outside this Court, and you kuov what tliev aro

His Honoar: You need not go into that: I dou't want to know anything about that.

Sir. Wilford then made formal application on behalf of tlio respondent for permanent', alimony, and intimated that lie bad claimed his right to cross-exam-ine as to petitioner's moans and interests in properties not disclosed in petitioner's affidavit in rcplv to the respondent's petition. Prior to the child being placed ,in the- convent, he said petitioner bad paid the respondent £7 per week, and sineo then iho weekly payment bad been £5 per week.

Mr. Young denied the respondent's risrht to any maintenance at all, but on behalf of tiio petitioner made an offer of £2 wookh- during the ioint lives of petitioner and respondent. ' Mr. Wilford: A man worth £30,000 or £40,000 should not ho able to Ret rid of his v.ifo so easily as a man earning £2 Bs. per week-. Having expressed ion-ret that the parties had been unable to agree on the matter of alimony, bis Honour deferred kis decision TCfzardins it, for a day or two. Mr. Wilford contending that £4 per week would bo-a reasonable sum. ANOTHER CASE. In tlio ease of Marie Horsley (now o( Svdnev) v. Pcrei/al John Horsley, of Stratford, in which a- decree nisi, was giante-d on August 19 of this year, Mr. W. A. Sim. for the pe'fciticner, applied In have the decree made absolute. His Honour granted the application and gave, the petitioner permanent custody of the two children, of the marriage.