SIMPSON V. FIREBRACE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1924, 6 October 1874, Page 2

SIMPSON V. FIREBRACE.

[BUKOIpEAK MAIL.] "-:- - On July 20 this case pame on, before the Vice-Chancellor's Court,' upon excep* tions by the defendant (Mr Firebrace) to the plaintiffs answer to interrogations on a concise stateraenb of Mr Firebrace. The litigation in reference to the quarrels of Mr and Mrs Firebrace has been before the Equity and Divorce Courts on several occasions. Mr Simpson haying advanced sums of money for, as he alleged, the support of Mrs Firebrace, filedjhis bill against Mr Firebrace for accounts and for payment. In January last an arrange- . ment was come to under which Mr Firebrace agreed to pay L3OO a year, and certain costs, and it was now stated that that agreement had been carried out ; but it was stated that Mr Simpson, claimed further sums which he alleged he had advanced for necessaries, and consequently Mr Firebrace filed a concise statement fop the purpose of compelling Mr Simpson to give every particular in reference to the advances made.- Mr J. N. Higgins, Q.C. and Mr Ingle Joyce, for the. exceptions contended that Mr . Simpson -had not answered some of the interrogatories at all ; and that some he had: not; answered sufficiently ; and that therefore : he ought to.be compelled to. answer every question fully, truly, and particularly. Mt Glasse and Mr Freeling for Mr Simpson, were not called upon. ;? The Vice-Ohancellor, after stating what--had been done, and t^at the case had::bec;OEae.:one of great notoriety, said it appeared that Mr and Mrs Firebrace had; been married- som^lS' or 16 years, and had resided in Australia up to 1866, where Mr Firebrace had "amassed a large fortune. They came to this country and lived, as some said, in splendour, and, as others said, in meanness;/" It had,_ however, never been contradicted that Mr Firebrace had made a; large fortune, and ■-. therefore he must assume that he was a man of fortune. Quarrels "arose in 1869, and Mr Firebrace instituted proceedings in the Divorce Court to get Tid of his wife. These proceedings lasted a Jong time,' and were of a- most: /expensive character. The .husband and wife pndo charges against each other, but in the^iid - the case against Mrs Firebrace; was dismissed — in short, both were acquitted of the guilt or misconduct each charged - against the oter. Of the marriage there were several children. Men who had wives and families had duties to perform, and every man was bound by -honor and feelings of humanity to give his wife, ample support j but Mr Firebrace had thought fit to absent himself : from his wife and to take away all the ghildreii, Mrs F-irebrace had required .assistance, and Mr Simpson .had rendered it, and it was said that he had ; advanced, sums improperly, while on the other' hand it was stated that he had not advanced enough, but all this would be gone into in . chambers at the proper time. . It was clear that, according to"; the authorities, where a wife had been deserted by her husband, she was entitled in. this court to be \ maintained, and that a suit tojrecever the I sum 9 advanced, shaving regard to her .'] ; position in life, 1 could be instituted. It was said that Mr Firebrace >swas -'entitled to many thousands l^ yearj 'and that he only allowed Jii3 wifeL3oo. Was-th'at a reasonable: amount?' Itiwas'^said that it did not r cover the sums now claimed for. He should-be glad if Mr Firebrace would act in the same sort of Spirit' that he.acted in January last, 'when, he agreed'to allow the, sum of L3,QQ a-year. It seemed to h,im that the sums claimed for, had been properly advanced, having,,] regard to her position in life. He thought that these proceedings on the part .otl-Mx Firebrace were frivolous and vexatious >in the last J degree, and therefore he should overrule I all the exceptions with' costs. > V