TWO SYDNEY DIVORCES

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1929, Page 8

TWO SYDNEY DIVORCES

“SINGING PAIISON” AND THEATRE ORGANIST. SOME PATHETIC LETTERS. SYDNEY, August 2. Two divorces, in botli of which .tjie parties, are known well lin Auckland and , other cities, were decided in Sydney this week. Involved in the first case is Frank Walter Gorman, known better by b" stage name of “The Singing'Parson” His wife secured a divorce on the ground of desertion. Pathetic letters were produced by counsel for the wife. Mrs Gorman said that her husband was a clergyman in the United States when she married him in 1911. He was 26 and she was 22 years of age. “In 1920 wc came to Sydney, Where he intended to make his living in the theatrical profession,” she said. “He obtained engagements from Fuller’s Theatres, and appeared in the various Australian States and throughout New Zealand.. When be went to New Zealand in March, 1924, I remained in Australia.” It was then she received the following letter:—.

LETTER. FROM NEW ZEALAND. " It is my judgment that a break will give each of us the opportunity to realise happiness, and consequently get the best out of life,” he wrote. “I, personally, have met someone whom I believe will give me that real happiness I have, longed for these many years. We contemplate working together on tlie stage as soon as we return to Australia. I shall certainly arrange for your welfare until such tSfiie as you remarry.” I ‘ ' .. 111 a subsequent letter lie suggested divorce by the “ restitution ” route, in which he would take the initiative; hut this did not meet with her approval. “ As regards your getting a divorce from me for desertion, that is rather rmiculous, isn’t it? ” she wrote, “ and as for my being premature in reaching the conclusion that you are living with someone, what other conclusion could I reach,' Frank, considering past experiences? . . . And now, because it is impossible ifor l me to get a divorce in Victoria, - * you want, to get a divorce from me in Sydney. That seems to be about the last straw. Haven’t you hurt me enough without that? I have taken a position in Myers, Ltd., as a shopgirl, and while it does not pay for my board even, living as I do, it helps. I thought' there were no more tears left in the world, but I have actually cried myself to sleep from weariness many times.” A And again, in 1928, she wrote : “You know, Frank, better than I, that I have a right to my freedom over and over again. . . . You know I can never go back to you, not only because yob lived with that woman in New Zealand, but because that sort of thing happened many times before, and that instance was simply the last straw.” She was granted a decree nisi. ,

EDDIE HORTON’S CASE. Eddie Horton, a Wurlitzer organist, who was in Auckland in 1926 arid is now playing at the Prince -Edward Theatre, in Sydney, was petitioner in the other case. On ttie ground of misconduct with a man named, he asked for a divorce from his wife, Ha«el May Horton, ciaiming that it was while they were in Auckland that his \.ife made the admissions which prompted his action. They were married in California in 1.923, and the following year Horton, came to Sydney under engagement to the Prince Edward Theatre. His wife, accompanied by her mother, arrived after, and they lived together for about three months. Then his wife and !•' mother occupied a flat together. He made her an allowance and also paid all her debts In 1926, when lie went to Auckland, his wile agreed to accompany liiiri, both agreeing to start life afresh. They had been’ in Auckland only a few days when Iris wife said: “It is no use. We cannot hit it, I am going' away.” Then he said, she told him of her misconduct with another man in Sydney. There was no appearance of the respondent, and the judge found misconduct proved, granting a oecree nisi.