THE DAVIS DIVORCE CASE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2065, 6 October 1880, Page 3

THE DAVIS DIVORCE CASE.

The hearing of this case was resumed on Monday, September 20th, before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Barry, Mr Justice Stephen, and Mr Justice Higinbotham. Mr Neighbour appeared for the petitioner ; Mr Lawes and Mr Purves for the respondent. Clara Unger, a nurse, gave evidence os to having nursed the petitioner about three months ago, and as to the respondent having admitted to her hia ill-treatment of hie wife. In cross-examination by Mr Lawes, she said that she had always been friends with the respondent. She came out to the colony about five years ago with Madame Simonsen, the mother of the petitioner. Fannie Simonsen, mother of petitioner gave evidence as to having taken her daughter to be examined by Dr. Balls-Headley. In cross-examination by Mr Lawes, she said that in July, 1879, she wrote to her daughter, who was then in New Zealand, telling her that she was lonely, and requesting her to come to her.

This closed the case for the petitioner. The respondent, David Davis, was then called, and was examined by Mr Lawes. He stated that he was married to the petitioner in 1876, and lived with her in New Zealand for three years. In June, 1879, Mr Simonsen, the petitioner’s father, was in New Zealand, on his way to America, and stopped with them for three weeks. In July, 1879, petitioner left with his (witness’s) consent to come to Melbourne. Up to that time he had never struck her. Ho had never struck her. It was not true that she left New Zealand partly on account of his having struck her on the face and shoulders. Had sworn at her sometimes, but was sorry for it afterwards. Had never boxed her ears. Had never told her that he would take jolly good care that he did not strike her in the presence of other people. Did not kick her in November last; nor did he in February last strike her with a rope, nor with a belltopper hat. When his wife went to Ballarat he went with her, and stopped with her four daye. She remained at Ballarat for ten days altogether. On one occasion afterwards Madame Simonsen came and abused him, and said he had made hia wife ill, but he denied the charge. In July last Mr Simonsen arrived from New Zealand, and on the same evening went with him to the Opera House to hear Mr Ketten. Afterwards went to Mr Simonson's house and had supper, and kissed his wife before leaving. After the concert given on the 10th July went to the ante-room at the Town Hall and congratulated his wife upon her success as a singer, and had supper the same night at Simonson’s house. Next day saw Mr Simonson, who proposed that he should allow Mrs Davis to go on the stage for twelve months. Witness refused, and Simonsen then said that Mrs Davis would sue for a divorce. Witness asked for the grounds, and Simonsen mentioned them. Witness denied the accusations against him. Mr Simonsen turned to Mrs Davis, and said, "You will sue for a divorce, my dear;” and she said, “I will pa; and I’ll got a divorce, and help you.” On the 15th July he went to Mr Simonson’s with a policeman, and said that he came to take his wife away. He refused to allow her to go, and sent Madame Simonsen for a pistol. Madame Simonsen brought a pistol, and witness then went away. He called in the policeman to see that Madame Simonsen had a pistol. He denied having made any admissions to Mr Salinger; but said that Mr Salinger said he would endeavor to effect a reconciliation, aud witness believed that Mr Salinger tried to do so. About a week afterwards, Mr Salinger advised him to take a year’s probation before attempting a reconciliation. The witness was cross-examined by Mr Neighbour, and he denied the various allegations altogether. Ho asserted that the proceedings were the result of a conspiracy between Mr and Mrs Simonsen, Kronheimer, and Salinger, and to get his wife away from him to earn money to pay a debt of £IOO due by Simonsen to Kronheimer. Dr. B. Barker, Dr. J. Williams and Mr T. M. G-irdlestone, medical practitioners, were also examined for the respondent, and they contradicted the medical evidence that had been given by Dr. Balls-Headley and Mr Budall for the petitioner. The Court then adjourned till next day. _ On resuming on Tuesday, the following translation of a letter written by Mr M,

Simonson to hie daughter, the petitioner, was put in : “ 24th May, 1880. “My dear Leo, —I hope that this letter will find you and the children and Dave in good health. As X cannot get a letter from you before Thursday, I have nothing to answer, and the news which I have to tell you is worse than ever. Business is very bad—worse than my greatest enemies could wish me. My receipts are nearly nothing, and the only consolation is that I am in good health. With the party I shall make short process, whether they like it or not. They all must lose two days* wages, and this is still too good an offer. A worse people don’t exist. I shall only be too happy to get rid of them. I hope that your health is better again, and that you may succeed in the opera. Perhaps there is something to be done in that later. There is, at any rate, no harm in it to know some pieces, and I think to be able to agree with Dave about it. Nothing new besides ; and with my best wishes for you and the children and Dave—l am, &c., “ Mabtin Sisiokbek.” This closed the evidence for the respondent. Mr Lawes then addressed the Court for the respondent, contending that the charges against him had not been proved. Mr Neighbour replied. The Court intimated a desire to osk Mrs Davis, the petitioner, some questions ; but as she was not present, the ease was adjourned till the following day. On Wednesday Mrs Davis was in attendance. In answer to the Court, the petitioner stated that she had not been at any time unfaithful to her husband. The Chief Justice said that in the opinion of the Court the petitioner was entitled to a decree. The petitioner had given her evidence in a clear and distinct manner, and there was no reason for disbelieving it. It was supported by statements made by the respondent to several persons, in which he admitted that he was to blame. Some of those admissions were afterwards withdrawn, but the denial could not outweigh the fact that there had been a substantial admission of guilt. Mr Justice Barry, Mr Justice Stephen, and Mr Justice Higinbotham also concurred that the petitioner had proved her case. Decree granted for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent.