THE DIVORCE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4128, 20 May 1876, Page 2

THE DIVORCE COURT.

In the case of Thomas v. Thomas and Hayes, Mr Bell, for the petitioner, said it was not clear that the adultery complained of had been committed before the issue of the first commission (issued for the purpose of taking evidence in Dunedin), but the evidence taken before the second commission, and after the last sitting of the Court, showed that the respondent had committed adultery with the co-respondent and with another man unknown.

The Court remarked upon the flagrant inconsistencies in the statements of the wit-' ness Turner, upon whose evidence solely the proof of adultery rested. The Chief Justice expressed the opinion that the Act was defective in respect ti taking evidence in distant parts of the Colony. It might be convenient to take evidence in distant towns.instead of bringing the parties before the full Court, but where it was necessary to do so the evidence should be taken before the Supreme Court Judge of the District. The petitioner, who is a laborer, gave further evidence. He was married to his wife on July 22, 1873, by the Rev. A. Reid, Wesleyan minister. About six months after marriage had reason to complain of her drunken habits, and upon remonstrating with her she left her home. Upon the same day he saw her drinking beer with the corespondent in the White Horse Hotel, George street. Tried to get her home, but she refused to come. Went again for her next day, and she said, “ I don’t want you finally left, finding it was impossible to get her away. On the third day she came home, and, in answer to questions, said she had been at the White Horse. About a week after she went away again to the White Horse, where witness found her in a little room off the bar with Hayes. Asked him what he was doing with his (petitioner’s) wife, and he said she was only having a glass of beer. Altogether she went away seven times, and he always found her at the White Horse with Hayes. • Never suspected anything wrong, although they were always together. It was about six months after she left for the seventh and last time that witness heard something that led to these proceedings. During the time she was away petitioner heard that she had been sleeping at Mrs Mecombe’s, a house which, according to report, was a brothel. Although she went there he did not suspect that she misconducted herself with other men. and therefore took no steps to prevent her going to the house. After the marriage he heard that she was a woman of loose character, but was not “exactly” aware that she had prostituted herself. Mrs Thomas was good-tempered, except -when she was drunk. She was thirty-eight years of age, and eight years older than petitioner. They lived at . Mornington, in a house belonging to petitioner. He never charged her with improper conduct, because when she was drunk he was afraid of her violent tongue. She called him everything that was bad.

Mr Justice Johnston said the petitioner had acted a most unmanly part in not. insisting upon an explanation of the conduct of a wife who slept away from her own home against the wish of her husband. A man so lost to respect —who was afraid of his wife’s tongue, forsooth—was scarcely entitled to the decree of the Court.

Mr Bell asked whether it was right even to entertain tbe idea that a man should be tied to such an immodest woman for life. Mr Justice Johnston said that was the penalty which the law prescribed for connivance —a fearful penalty it was—but it was monstrous to think that a man who knew or suspected that his wife was guilty of immoral practices, should take no steps to secure a proper explanation. The law clearly said that a man who connived at his wife’s adultery on Monday had no right to complain of her adultery on Tuesday In this case the petitioner condoned his wife’s offences six times, and didn’t condone them on the seventh because his wife did not return to her home, and he had not an oppor-. tunity. It was important at this period of their divorce jurisprudence that every care should be taken to establish their principles of procedure upon a proper basis. At yesterday’s sitting Mr Bell quot'd authorities to show that the conduct of petitioner had not been such as could be considered connivance, and that consequently he had not forfeited his right to a rule. The Court reserved its decision.