THE DAVIS DIVORCE CASE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2062, 2 October 1880, Page 3

THE DAVIS DIVORCE CASE.

The hearing of this case, which we have since learnt by cable resulted in a verdict for the petitioner, was commenced in Melbourne on September 17th, before thoir Honors Chief Justice Harry, Mr Justice Stephen, and Mr Justice Higinbotham. The petitioner, Leonora Martina Davis, prayed for the dissolution of her marriage with David Davis, on •the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Mr Neighbour appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Lawes and Mr Purves for the respondent. The following report of the trial up to the date of the adjournment, is taken from the “ Argus : ” The petitioner is only twenty years of age, and she sues by her father Martin Simonsen, as next friend. She was bom at Monte Video, South America, The respondent, who is twenty-eight years of rge, was born at Sydney, N.S.W. Petitioner was married to the respondent in October, 1876, at the Jewish Synagogue, Christchurch, New Zealand, by the Rev. Isaac Zachariah, Jewish rabbi. There have been two children born of the marriage. On the 19th November, 1877, she left Christchurch for Melbourne to visit her parents, and returned on the 9th June, 1878. On the 9th July, 1879, she again came to Melbourne. The petition states that the respondent sent her j the answer states that it was at the request of her parents. In August, 1879, ho followed her, and she lived with him at St. Hilda till June, 1880, when she left him. The petition alleged various charges of cruelty and harshness, which the answer denied.

Martin Simonsen, musician, father of petitioner, stated that he was present at the marriage in October, 1876. In August of this year was present at a conversation, where Mr Salinger and the respondent wore present, and at which accusations were made against Davis. The suit had then been began. Salinger said, “If you tell a lie to your lawyer, how can he defend your case ?” end he (respondent) then confessed to the truth of the allegations against him. Cross-examined by Mr Purves —Was in Christchurch, New Zealand, in April, 1879, , and was staying at respondent’s. Did not ask respondent to let his wife go on thestage. Told him she ought to give lessons in singing and on the piano, as he could not support her, Davis replied that he did not like her to give lessons, as it was not respectable. On several occasions asked him to let her go to work, and he refused. Told Davis it was better that his wife should work for food and clothing for the children, as he was not then able to maintain her, Duvis then traded in cigars and liquor. Witness afterwards went to America, and on his return found his daughter in Melbourne. His wife (Madame Simonson) gave a concert on the 11th July last. Davis several times came to his (witness’s) house before the concert, and saw his wife, but never alone. On the night of the concert, Davis went home with them to supper. Mrs Davis was also at the sapper. She refused to kiss her husband, and he went away. Next morning Davis came to the house, and asked him to go into partnership. Witness replied, “ I have instituted proceedings for a divorce against you, and I hope you will not come any more to this house. I don’t want any partnership with you.” The witness further stated that when be was in New Zealand in June, returning to Victoria, in consequence of letters received from his wife, he telegraphed to her for his daughter to apply for a divorce from Davis. He arrived in Melbourne four or five days before the concert, but ha did not quarrel with Davis, as he did not wish to have any rows in public. Ha had been fifteen years before the public, and had never had any rows, But Davis had made rows in the public streets, and would never let him rest or walk in the streets. On the Sunday night after the concert he believed that he, his wife, Davis, and Mrs Davis, went to a party at Mr Salinger’s house. Did not recollect Davis going with them. On one occasion when he saw Davis they had a conversation, when he told Davis to let his wife remain away for twelve months, and to give her £3 a week, and if at the end of that time she liked to return to him she might. Mrs Davis, who was present, said she would tbink about it. Some time in July, Davis came to witness’s house with a policeman. Davis said he came to take bis wife and children away. Witness told him that she could go if she liked. He said he would take her by force. Did not tell his wife to go and get a pistol. Did not use pistols | used a poker. Witness used a poker on one occasion because respondent ill-treated Mrs Davis. Believe Mrs Simonsen did come with a revolver, but he told her to take it away. Davis was making a horrible row.

Mr Parves—Next day did you meet Mr Davie at one of the music shops, and say, 11 Look here, I am sorry this happened last night. If you are agreeable to take her home she can go back again ?” Witness —It’s a d d lie. The Chief Justice—You must not use that language here, sir. Cross-examination continued—Never said anything to him like that if he came to the lawyers, and they agreed to it, she could go back. Did tell him if he arranged with her lawyers she might go back. Went to Wisewould and Gibbs, petitioner’s proctors. Davis went with him. Davis was like a leech, and would never leave you when he got hold of you. Served Davis with a police court summons, but it was withdrawn on his promising to behave himself. Madame Simonson, he believed, made £3O or £4O out of the concert in July. Mrs Davis sang. She was not a success as a singer—a dead failure. She had a splendid voice a year ago, but hue got no voice now. The notices were favorable. She was advertised again for a concert for 31st July. Mr Purves—Why did you advertise her when she was a failure at the first. Witness —In this country, where names are known, the names of professional people carry weight with them —some great weight. And as my wife is a prima donna, to advertise her daughter as Leonora Simonsen would carry some weight, I have been a violinist, and if my son were to advertise himself as a violinist, the fact of his being my son would have some influence with the public. Ra.examined—Davis behaved rather roughly at my house in July— too rough for a private house. He had a big stick—a club.

After some evidence from Dr. Balls-Headley and Mr Budall, surgeon, and a w> ness name H. Wertheim, the further hearing was postponed, and the Court adjourned till next day (Saturday). Oo resuming, Leonora Davis, the petitioner, stated that she last came to the colony in July, 1879, and her hcsbaud followed her about six weeks afterwards. At first they redded with her parents at St. Hilda, but afterwards removed to a house of their own in Greeves street, St. Hilda. Towards the end of the year she went to Ballarat, and returned in a few weeks. She detailed instances of alleged cruelty on the part of her husband, and said that on one occasion in November, 1879, her husband kicked her on the aide, and in consequence of this she left him, but at his entreaty returned to him again. In February last be struck her on the face with a rope, and had also struck her with a bell-topper hat. From about two or -three months after the marriage he had used most abusive language to her. Cross-examined by Mr Purves—Her marriage took place in October, 1876. Her first child Was born in September, 1877. She left her husband a few mouths after the marriage in consequence of his using bad language to her, and having struck her. She did not know what led up to the quarrels, but on one occasion he spoke badly about every one, and she remonstrated with him about it. It was partly in consequence of his cruelty she came to Melbourne the first time, ia June, 1877. She might have received a letter from her mother asking her to come. When living in New Zealand her father onco stopped at their house. He did not advieo her to go on the stage, but advised her to teach singing and the piano. Her husband would not let her tesoh singing, as he said it was not respectable. She remained in Melbourne about six weeks in 1877, and then returned to her husband in New Zealand, and she stayed with him till they finally came here in 1879. Her married life bad been one continual sue cession of dangers. After her husband struck her with tho rope she went te her parents. He followed her, and told her it was rm accident, and that she had better come back to him, and she did bo. Her sister saw her struck with the rope. No person witnessed the other assaults. She had asked her husband why he did not strike her when people were present, and he said he would take jolly good care not to do so. She went to Ballarat to play at a concert, with her husband’s permission. He took the money she earned at it (£7). On the 24*.h June she finally left him, owing to his conduct. On the 26th June she went with him to Williamstown to see a friend. After she bad left him and went to live with her parents he used to oomo to the house to see tho children. Did not remember respondent having supper at her father’s house on any occasion except the 11th July, the night of the concert at which she sang. Her husband wanted to kiss her before he went away, but she refused to let him. He came again next day, and she told him that she was taking proceedings for a divorce. He said, “ For what ?” and she said because he had treated her badly. She knew at the time of the supper on the night of the concert that she was about to take proceedings for a divorce. She had consulted a • dicitor about it. On the following Monday she told her husband that if he would allow her £3 a-week, and remain away for a twelvemonth, she would at the end of that time consider whether she would return to him. She received a letter from tno respondent about the end of July. Mr Purves read the following letter: — “ My Dear Wife —Yon have no doubt by this time received my letter of the 22nd inst., and I have also no doubt you feel the coldness of my manner to you, but under the circumstances I am also driven to despair over our position. If you have any regard for yourself and our children, for God’s sake do not continue to act as you are now doing, I wish particularly to have a private audience with you. It is an awful position for both of us to be separated as we now are, and if you will not repose some confidence in me it will be the ruin of both of us. I hope for tho sake of our children you will not drive me to extremes. lam sure you would not act as you are now doing nnless you were coerced by some outside influence. Do not allow this matter to rest, but see me at once, when I am sure we can make all things right. lam truly broken hearted at our unnecessary separation, and I hope you will at once seeme. With fond love and kisses to yourself and our dear children, believe me, my dear wife, your fond and affectionate husband, David Davis.” The witness said that that was not like the letter she received.

Mr Purvis read the following document : “ Qreeves street, St. Eilda, 22nd July, 1880. Mr M. Simonsen, Carlisle street, St. Hilda. Sir, —I hereby give you notice that I will not allow my wife to sing at the concert to be given by Madame Simonsen on the 31st inst., and if necessary (should yon not discontinue the announcement of her name both in the advert {semen's and placards, taking part at the concert), 1 will at once take every legal measure in my power to prevent it, both before and on the night of the concert. And I hereby further give you notice that should this injunction be disregarded, I will _at once take an action at law against you in this matter without further notice. I am, &c., David Davis.”

“ Q-reeves street, St. Hilda, 22nd July, 1880. Mrs D. Davis, care Madame Simonsen, Carlisle street, St, Hilda. Madame, —I positively refuse my sanction to your singing at the Town-hall on the 31st inst., and, if necessary, should you not desist in your intention therein, will at once take every legal measure in my power to prevent it both before and on the night of the concert.”

He-examined—Last week received the following note in respondent’s handwriting - “ This is your verdict as your friends wish it to be. The Court dismissed the petition with costs.”

Martina Simonsen, sister of the petitioner, said that when petitioner and respondent lived at Mr Simonsen’s they were frequently quarrelling. On one occasion, at Greevcs street, she saw respondent strike petitioner with a rope. In cross-examination she said that on the morning after the quarrel they had breakfast together. Julius Salenger, importer, said that on the 12th or 13th July respondent spoke to him about the divorce proceedings about to be commenced by his wife, and asked him, as a friend of the family, to intercede for him, and said, “ Leo is willing to come back if you will only intercede, and it will be all right.” Witness told him to go to hie wife and ask her to give him twelve months to redeem himself in her eyes, and if it could be arranged he would be glad to do all he could to bring about a satisfactory settlement. Next day Davis called, end said he had not followed the advice, and witness then said that he would have nothing more to say in the matter. The witness said that at this interview Davis admitted the charges against him, but at a subsequent interview on the 144 b August, when Mr Simonsen was present, Davis denied having made any admissions,' but afterwards again made the admissions. Joseph Kronheimer, tobacco importer, said that he had. known Mr Davis for about twelve months. He spoke to him about his conduct towards Mrs Davis, and he denied it. The further hearing of the case was postponed till Monday, and the Court rose.