DIVORCE AND DAMAGES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1257, 11 June 1914, Page 4

DIVORCE AND DAMAGES.

HUSBAND AWARDED £4, SOU.

Damages assessed at ,£4,800 were awarded to a petitioner in the London Divorce Court recently, to be settled on his only child. The co-respondent who was ordered to pay this amount, with costs, was Sidney Frank Garrett.

The petitioner was Charles Frederick Thor ■■ley, a young man in business a- a tailor. He sought a dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of his wife's misconduct with Mr Ga.mlt. The wife did not apnear, and put in no defence, lv ■ r '-respondent had filed an answer tm-oially d myiug misconduct.

Mr Marshall Hall, for the petitioner, said there was really no defence on the issue ot misconduct, the only question for the jury being one of damages. The petitioner, by the act of the corespondent, had suffered a serious pecuniary loss, quite apart from any sentimental loss. Not a penny o( the sum awarded would he taken by the petitioner ; the money, subject to the assent of his lordship, would be settled on the only child of the marriage, rt . boy. Many years ago the petitioner aud the respondent formed a boy and girl attachment. She was the daughter of a rich man, and on his death she succeeded to about ,£20,000. After a long engagement, from 1903 to 1907, they were married, with the consent of the respondent’s trustees. The petitioner had a comparatively small income—,£2OO or ,£3OO a >e*r.

For the first two or three years Mr and Mrs Thornley were ideally happy, but Mrs Thornley afterwards appeared to have become somewhat hysterical in temper. Shortly after the hoy was born, in June 1909, Mr Thornley set up in i-Tcess with a partner. He was not very successful, aud was assisted by his wife. On February 20. 19 11, he had to go to Paris on business.

On.: day Mr Thornley heard something from a friend, aud in April, 1912, he wrote to his wife protesting against her association with Garrett, adding, “When yon put all your confidence in a scamp, argument is useless.”

The wife took the extraordinary course of handing the letter to Garrett who demanded an apology and threatened proceedings for libel.

Mrs Thornley never returned to her husband, although he constantly wrote to her imploring her to come back to him.

In March 19x3, he wrote pointing out to her that “a home without her husband and child must be a dreary existence for a good woman,” and said he would thrash the co-respondent, and that if that did not deter him, ‘‘l will publicly thiasb him. Let his own impression, ‘20,000 quid, mi boy, nish nosh,’ ring in your memory.” Counsel explained that this referred to Garrett having boasted that he had found “a. little lady up Muswell Hill way, with 20,000 quid, ml boy, nlsh nosh,” whatever that might mean.

The petitioner also wrote to the co-respondent, “If you do anything in any way which will cause me to dissolve my marriage, I will mercilessly thrash you,” and called him a “contemptible cad.” Garrett replied:— “It is really a most funny letter I have received from you. Fancy you trying to thrash me ! Funny I should receive your letter on your wife’s birthday, when we are both happy. Flo and I have come to love one another, and you may take what course you like. Let me know when vou come on the thrashing business still better, make an intment, butrememner, it is a good game lor two or more.”

The petitioner gave evidence, and f urtK vidence was given that, in May and June last, the respondent and co-respondent had stayed together.

The jury assessed the damages against the co-respondent at ,£4BOO.