LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2193, 4 July 1914, Page 14

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT JUDCE AMD COUNSEL A VEILED DECREE SHARP COMMENT FROM THE BENCH Sovoro comment was mndc by tlio Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in tho Supremo Cmirl yesterday afternoon upon tile action of a widow, who had Ijiilcd to disclose material facts when npplyini; to the Court for an order iiiiilor the Family Protection Act. Ills Honour also remarked upon the want of frankness on tlio part of the widow's .solicitor. The matter before tho Court had reference to tho will of tlio lato Charles Louis Harrow, of Otalti, who died on November 7, 1913, and whoso estate was in the hands of tho Public Trustee. When tho ease was called yesterday, the solicitor for tho Public Trust Office (Mr. J. W. Macdonald) appeared for tho Public Trustee, while Mr. It. 1). "Williams appeared for Alice. Harrow (tho widow) and her child. Mr. Williams, addressing His Honour, said that on April 2 last tho Court had mado an order granting Mrs. Barrow a sum of 225. Cα. per week for the maintenance of herselt and her child. Tho following day counsel had received a letter from Mr. Macdonald, stating that ho (Mr. Macdonald) had discovered that tho deceased (diaries Louis Harrow) had in his life-time obtained a decree nisi in divorce proceedings against his wife. Tho letter further statod that Mr. Macdonald had mentioned the -.natter in Chambers to tlio Chief Justice, who had suspended tho order made in favour of the widow, and hat he (Mr. Macdonnld) proposed to have the who!« matter brought beforo the Supreme Oourt again. Mr. Williams went on to say that l>o had subsequently interviewed His Honour, and now tho matter had been brought up again. It was thrco months Binco tho order had been made, and in the meantime not a penny had been paid. Ho submitted that under tho Family Protection Act the right to suspend the order was contingent on'an inquiry, and tlioy.had had no inquiry. Decree Nisi Veiled. Tho Chief Justice: Tho fact that this woman had a decreo nisi given against her should luivo bocn mentioned to tho Court. Mr. Williams contended that tho Public Trusteo should havo brought tho matter up again by moving for his (Mr. Williams's) client to show cause. Tho Chief Justice: I don't think so. 1 think you should havo moved m tho matter. After somo further discussion, in V'hich Mr. Williams again protested that tho Public Trusteo should havo taken different action, His Honour remarked: "1 think the Public Trusteo has acted quito rightly." Mr. Maedonald, in reply to a question by His Honour, stated that tho decree uisi was issued on September 2, I'JIO, but it had never been mado absolute. Tho will of tho deceased was dated November 13, 1910—moro than two months after the divorce procecdillßS. Mr. Williams declared that tho parties had como together again, and had lived as man and wifo lor two and a half years beforo the death of tho husband. Thero had been a complete reconciliation, and Barrow had died in his wife's arms. Tho Chief Justice read from an affidavit, filed by deceased's solicitor, in which it was stated had only lived together for six months prior to Barrow's death, and that Barrow had told his solicitor that ho would nevev mako provision for his wifo. Mr. Williams mado some- further remark disclaiming responsibility fo»" the non-disclosure of the facts. "You Aro to Blame." . Tho Chief Justcie: If there is any blame, blame her and her solicitor. She has dono enough to disentitle her to an allowance under tho will for all time. Mr. Williams: If Your Honour blames The Chief Justice: Well, then, if you knew of fne facts, you aro to blame. Mr. Williams: Tho Court knew as much as 1 knew,. Your Honour. Tho Chief Justice: Do you mean to suggest that 1 ca,n carry in my mind all tho people 1 divorce? The Court should have been informed of the fact that thero \\w a decreo nisi. Mr. Williams: Your Honour, I repudiate- all suggestion of suppressing anything. The Chief Justice: Why did you not toll mo of the divorce proceedings? Mr. Williams replied that it was for tho simple reason that he thought Mr. .Macdonald wns acquainted with tho facts. Tho Chief Justice said that this was a wrong course to take, and ho was sorry it counsel could not see that it was. .Mr. Williams again repudiated any improper intention. His client, ho said, had informed him that the Chief Justice had presided at tho divorce pro ccedings, and , was acquainted with tlit facts. Counsel did not think hi: client had had any intention of mislead ing tlio Court. Anonymous Correspondent. Mr. Macdonald denied that ho kncn anything of tho divorce proceedings ai th<! time the matter was previously be foro tho "Court. His first intimatioi that there was anything irregular caim to him through an anonymous letter ad dressed to him. Ho read from note: of the previous bearing , to showtha , Mrs. Barrow, on her own statement had not lived with her husband for s< long a period as two and a half year: before the letter's death. fTe. fnrthe drew tho attention of the Court to tin fact that the divorce proceedings ii September, 1910, liad been before Mr Justice Chapman. Mr. Williams admitted that the state ment as to the parties living togethe for two and a half years must have bcei inaccurate. Tho Chief Justice read from his note of evidence, pointing out that he hai specially questioned Mrs. Harrow as ti lilt! cause of her being separated fion her husband. She had said that it wa through, his drinking habits, but hai mado no mention of divorce proceed ings. In tin' course of further discussion it wns stated Hint the previous orde had been made for the mother and th child, the latter being only ten year j (if age. The ostati', which was to g in the cliild at the ngo of tweuty-im years, was worth an income of abou I'lß per annum, the onlv free as*: being an insurance policy for £IO( Mr. Williams (Vsiicil to call evidence a to the terms on which Mr. and Mrliarniw lived prior to the death of th husband. The evidence of Alan Camiont, an ol age pensioner, and the lather of Mr. , Barrow, Alice Harrow, William chairman of the Otaki Town Board, r< fcrrod In the drinking habits of the d< ceased, anil to the fact that the pai ties had lived together prior to hi death. There was a cnunirt uf test ii'nny ;is to whether Barrow bad <■> liressly stntcd his intent inn of iiiiikin provision I'm , his wife. Costs Refused. 11 is llnuniir expressed himself a sati.-ficd that tho Public Trustee ha I. acted Quito properly, in tho mattei

There was not a fhrfl i'isd'osufo; o.t Iko facts lo the Court, by the ftjuW at. tin l time tlic order was made, akhuuftVi chore should Imvu beeij. matter was now settled, however, fl-iiij. 1)1? $ri)' posed to make a f.ressi. tffdor.. )'"« tho mouths of April, S.\A:S; sijid' Jtw»\ Mi*. Harrow would bo jrUoVjod 7s. M, per week for her child. Vmm >h\\y 1, Hi* Honour would nllosv- Sf'f.s, \m wvi'k .tin certain condition?.. t.f the (-<>iifli:iioi!?: wore broken, tlu> l%b|i<' 'i'i'i.vstti.' w.o.uki have to bring the Mator Wow file Court again. Ths; onfw vvaisld J* "lt'.r three years certain," a.iitf it* tlijs piuJ of time period a new 5 appKMtifli) cotrld W made. A eoliv'itioii. <>t the' ordc.t' would ho that the child sjlQijdd bo «iaiimi.m>vj iit the Convent School, Otnfci.,. 'There were also other coiiditiofjii to be. ohscrved.

In makinfi the order. His Honour said ho had taUoSt into consideration the facts that, although tne dociee iu>-i had not been mentioned 11. Harrow was still m tim rek.ions.up of wife at the time of her husband'* death, that she- would hn\t hrcu entitled to nlimonj c\en had uieie been .1 decree absolute, and that thero was evidence that she v.c-, in a weak state of health, nnd lift fit for haru i ork. Ho pointed out that had -die not been ill. it was improbable that nu older would have been made in her fiuour Mr. Williams asked if His Honour would make an order a-, to costs The Chief Justice I nil not alio* costs. These things should have ben disclosed to tho Cou t Mr. Williams once mo'e, disclr-nnoa responsibility for tlie non-discle arc of the facts. , , The Chief Justice- I don't care who is responsible. You'w not been frjuk with the. Couit Mr. Williams denied ni.y -ntoinicn of bcinu other than franc The Chief Justice- f'\o Rive.t tuv judßment, Mi. Wil'iams, nnd I don t want any further discussion