DIVORCE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5506, 19 November 1878, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT.

Monday, November IS. (Before their Honors tho Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Jobqpton, Mr. Justice Gillies, and Mr. Justice Williams.) Tho sitting of tho Full Court under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act was opened at 11 o’clock tins morning. DEVERT V. DEVERr AND BDRKE.

In this case (heard at tho former sitting) Mr, Izard made application to have this cause put on the list. It was an application for a rule absolute, and the case had not been sent up to him until Saturday. The Court granted the application. HENET V. HENEY AND MOORE.

Mr. Chapman applied for a 'lecree absolute, with costs against the co-respondent, under rule 53, as he had not entered an appearance. At the making of the rule nisi no application was made as to coats, and it was to remedy this omission that he now applied The Court made the rule absolute, but refused the application for co*ts. WOOLOOOK V. WOOLCOCK AND WADDELL. ■. Mr. leavers applied for a rule absolute. The case was heard at the former sitting of the Court. The Court made the rule as prayed. M'MAHON V, M ( MAHON AND RD3SKLL.

Mr. Gordon Allan applied for a rale absolute in this case, which was heard at the former sitting of the Court. There had been no appearance entered, or intervention by the Attorney-General or anyone else. The Court made the decree absolute. BARNES V. BARNES AND MARTIN.

Mr. Gordon Allau applied fer a ru'e absolute in this case, which was heard at the former sitting of the Court. The rule was made absolute!' DEYERT V. DEVERY AND MOORE.

Mr. Izard applied for a.rule absolute, which was made accordingly. GEORGE T. GEORGE.

In this case the wife petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The parties were married at the residence of Thomas George, the respondent’s father, in the city of Wellington, on the 7ch June, 1873. They lived at Wanganui, and subsequently at Wellington, and three children were the issue of the marriage.' The petition alleged several acts of cruelty at Wanganui and Wellington, the result being that the petitioner obtained a protection order against her husband at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, early in 1878. The petition further alleged that on the 6th July, 1878, the respondent committed adultery with one Mary Morgan, a married woman. Thera was no appearance on the part of the respondent. Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the petitioner.

M*ry Ann George, examined by Mr. Allan: I am the petitioner in this suit against \Ym. George. Sly name before marriage was Mary Ann Sayers, and my father’s name George Sayers, Inspector of Public Works. In June, 1873, I was married to the respondent by Mr. Moir, Scotch clergyman, at the house of Mr. Thomas George, my husband’s father, in Wellington. Mr. George was one of the warders at the gaol. I was then 16 years and 2 months old. My husband is a blacksmith. My parents objected to the marriage. We lived first in Wellington, then in Featheraton, then in Wanganui, and again in Wellington. I had three children. My husband’s conduct towards me during the first years of our marriage was fairly good until we went to Wanganui. We went there about June, 1877. His conduct to me there was very bad. On the first occasion he struck me in the face and burned my hand with a lighted cigar. This was about August, 1877. It was because I was too ill to do anything, and was under the ♦ doctor’s treatment. Ho burnt my hand

wilfully with the cigar; he acknowledged having done so to my brother. There no other acts of cruelty at Wanganui. We subsequently came to reside in ellington two or three days after this. On a Saturday afternoon in November, 1877, my brother came for me to go to my mother’s bouse. I went as far as the gate, and my husband ran after me, caught me by the hair of the bead, dragged me into the house, and struck me in the face with his clenched fist. My brother inter!-red, and struck him. Before going out, my husband had not forbidden me to go. He forbade me to take an umbrella which belonged to my mother. X left my brother, and went into the bedroom : my husband followed, kicked mo twice, and threw me on the bed ; he kicked me in the lower part of the body. He struck me with his fist on fcfce breast. He scolded my brother for interfering. I was then enceinte, and had been so for five months. He wanted me to take some drug. He said he did not want me to have any children. I refused to take the drug. In January, 1878, when my mother and myself were at supper in my own home, my husband came in ; he was very rude, and sat on the table. He caught hold of my mother, and threw her violently down the "steps on to the bricks. I went to r ase my mother, and my husband 4 struck me on the body with his clenched fist/ and threw me violently against the fireplace. He left me lying onthefionr, and then went outside to mymother. She had got to the gate, and he struck her and knocked her down. He returned to where I was lying on the floor ; he raised me on the sofa. About an bour afterwards he asked me to go to bed. I was not able to do so. He then wont out. We were then living in Words* worth-street. My husband returned in about an hour; I was still" lying on the sofa ; he left me lying there, and he went up to bed, Very early in tbe morning he came down, and assisted the servant (Maria Collins) to carry me up to bed. He then got frightened and said I had better send for a doctor and tell hinf I had fallen down. Dr. Harding was sent for, and came. I was unable to leave my bed fpr two or three days. I was confined on the 17th of March.' Eight days before my confinement I was waiting for my husband outside my mother’s house. I was seized with cramp, and ho took me into my mother’s house and gave mo some brandy. He stuplfied me with it. I asked him to take me home. On a the way home ho struck mo twice with his fist on the street —once he cat my lip, and ho next struck me on the side. This was about halfpast nine at night. When we got borne he told me to undress. I was doing so; he came to me. and pulled my things of! very violently, threw me down on tbe bed, and struck me with bis fiat on. the head. I was then without a servant. A fortnight after I was confined ; when X was just getting about ho pushed me violently against the fireplace and once against the sofa. 'The nurse was in thq washhouse at

.the time. The doctor told him to keep the nurse » -» month. He-told the doctor ho was only en- ' conraging mb la laziness. He sent the nurse away. I remained, in his bouse a week after that. He struck me on the face twice on the 6th of April—once with his hand, and again with bis foot on the lower part of the body. He did so because I bad taken two books which he wanted to take to his mother’s. I had put them away, and.he asked me for them. My mother had bought them for me, and ho wanted to present them to his mother, saying they would be more useful to her than me. Qno was a book about household management, and the other was a medical book. I left immediately with my baby in my arms, and went to my mother's house. I said I was going, and he said ho was’glad to get rid of mo. I - have not cohabited with him since. Ho has twice asked me to come hack, but I have refused to do so, I remember being on the wharf about a week after I left him. My husband was on the wharf. He asked me what I • was doing there ? I made no reply, and was coming away. X was coming between two expresses, when ho came and kicked me from behind so aa to hurt me. He afterwards took my bat off my head, and-struck mo with it in the fac?. A m a “ e,nd Interfered ;X do not know who ho was. ‘ He called him a

coward for striking me. He said- I was his wife, and he could do what ho liked with me. -,T came away, and ho followed me. When I get near-the Court House he gave me my

hat and left me, X wont into the Resident Magistrate’s Court and applied for a summons for a protection order. My husband has two of the children, and I have tho baby. Some time in July, 1378, my father took me to a house in Willis-streeb, where there was a woman named Morgan. She used to do my washing. I saw Mrs. Mo*gan there Wo asked her to accompany uV^ O where my husband was working, at Fitchetb’s in Wordsworth-streefc. I pointed out my husband to Mrs. Morgan ; my husband could hear what I said, I asked her if that was tho man who at her house. X pointed to my husband, and said, That is my husband.” Mrs. Morgan said i( Yes, and turned her head away. My husbaud said nothing ; we came away immediately. Mrs. Morgau bad washed for me three or four years previously. I got an order from Mr, Crawford to see tho children. X went to see them several times. The first time X went to see them at the Wellington Hotel. My father was with me at the time. My husband was at tho Wellington Hotel at the time. My husband said he would not deny having committed adultery with this woman. He said we had found him out, and he wouldn’t deny it. Some time before that my husband had commenced proceedings for a divorce against me on the ground of adultery. I had put in an answer denying it, and the co-respondent put in an answer of denial too. I applied for alimony. I had no communication _ with my husband on the subject before I commenced this charge of cruelty and adultery against him. X have never spoken t-o him about this suit. There is no agreement between us that he was not to appear in this suit. There was no agreement between us that my husband should not go on with his suit against me. It is not true that I am guilty of tho charge of adultery which was brought against me, by mv husband; I can bring witnesses to prove it. [The Chief Justice here read a statement from the petitioner, in which the husband charged the petitioner with having committed adultery with Thomas Farrah, brewer, of Wanganui, on the 11th April, 1878, at the Theatre Royal Hotel, Wellington ] It is not true that at the time and place alleged I committed adultery with Thomas Farrah. I was at the hotel one evening in company with Mrs. Baile} r , who kept the hotel. Farrah was in ray .’company while I was with Mrs. Bailey. He had been a friend of myself and husband for a long time. He had kuown me for 11 years. Mrs. Bailey and t left Mr. Farrah in the sitting-room, and went to our rooms, I believe Mr. Farrah slept there that Mr. Farrah wrote a letter to Mr. George relative to some money he owed Mr. George. The letter came before I left my husband. I saw Mr. Farrah in the street afterwards. He said he was very busy, but would see me at the hotel if I called. I went to the hotel about seven in tho evening, and Mrs. Bailey advised me not to take the child out in the wet and cold ; she said she would give me a room, and I decided to stay. After I (vent to my room my husband came there. I did’nt know that he was coming. When he came he said I had gone to the hotel to meet Mr. Farrah, and that I was going to sleep-with him that night. My husband insisted on sleeping in the same room that night. He went away next morning. I went to my mother’s next morning. My mother knew that I was going to Mrs. Bailey’s, and did not expect me home on such a wet, cold night. By Judge Johnston : My husband was a man of sulky temper. If he had a row with the men in the shop he would come home and strike mo. He was a passionate man. Sometimes you would think he was not in a passion and ho would strike me. He has expressed sorrow for striking me. I knew him nine months bafore I was married. My parents objected to the marriage ; they did not like hi n.

By Judge Gillies: My husband never accused me of unfaithfulness. He -said once or twice that the last baby was not his, but he knew it was. He said he would get money out of Farrrh to hush it up. Maria Collins, examined by Mr. Allan : I was in the service of Mr. and Mrs. George. I entered their service in May last year. I remained in their service about a year. I have seen Mr. George beat Mrs. George on the face ond breast. I remember having to go for the doctor in Wellington when Mr. George hurt her. I saw him beating her, but I was frightened and went out. I saw that she was very ill after he had beaten her. She was not able to go upstairs. I went for Dr. Harding. She was not violent. I never heard her quarrel with him. I saw him strike her after he carried her into the kitchen from the door. She slept on the sofa that night. He did not say anything to her when he struck her. Mary Morgan, examined by Mr. Allan : I am a married woman. I remember on the 6th of July a man coming to my house and staying there till 1 o’clock. [Witness gave evidence as to_ the respondent’s adulterous connection with her.] I remember Mrs. George and her father coming to me. Mrs. George asked me if I would go with her to Mr. Fitchett’s. I saw the same man there. He was pointed out to me by Mrs. George. That was the man who had been to my place. I had not known Mr. George before. I washed for them, but had never seen Mr. George before. I have not seen anything of him since. •

By Judge Chillies : I don’t know how these people came to find out that Mr. George had been at my place. They gave mo nothing for telling them that Mr. George had bcen.atmy place. T don’t know why I admitted’’ft, or why I went with. them. I did not expect to get anything from them. I don’t keep a brothel. There are no girls in my house. ' My husband ban been away seven years. Mrs. George asked me if there had been a man at my house on the Saturday night ? I said yes ; and she asked me if X would know him again if he was pointed out to me ? I said I would. She asked mo if I remembered her husband, and I said I did not. I went with her to Fitchett’s for tbe purpose of seeing whether it .was her husband who had been at ray place on the 6bh of April. When she said “Is that the man?” I said “Yes.” X didn't know on what errand she had come to my house. I never suspected what was the purpose I was going to Fitchett’s for. Before we went to the blacksmith's shop, she told me she had been separated from her husband for a long time, that she had often tried to find him out, but never could till now. The father never spoke at all. She told me before I went to the blacksmith’s shop that they bad watched him on the Saturday night coming to my house. She said she had been a friend to me before, and would be a friend to me again if I told her the truth.

The Court inquired if Mr. Allan had any’ further evidence of the adultery.on the part of the respondent with the witness ?

Mr. Allan said he had no other evidence to offer of this adultery. He would proceed to ask the witness some further questions. Examination resumed: I get my living by working and washing. Gentlemen are not in the habit of coming to my place at night to see me. I don’t know why I yielded to Mr. George that night. I have not been promised any money fop giving information. Mr. George did not give me money or a present. I have told the truth about the matter. Oliver Samuels: I-am a solicitor, conducting the proceedings in this suit. I saw the respondent about ten days ago, in tho evening. I saw him outside Messrs. Moorhouso and Edwards' office about twelve o’clock at night. He seemed to bo waiting for me. He said he wished to speak to me about ray wife’s divorce case. He told me that he would like to live with her again. He knew I was conducting the proceedings for the petitioner. He asked mo to use my influence with his wife in his favor. I told him I did not feel .myself justified to advise his wire to go on with the divorce suit or not, I told him it was a serious thing for a woman to separate herself from her husband and children,-and I would not advise one way or the other. Ho said :“If I had ritlt gone with that woman Morgan, I would have got divorced from her; I have made a mess of it; I* should have got a lot of money out of Farrah.” Ho said that if. his wife went on with this suit he would leave Wellington. - Ho stated ho had gone to Mrs. Morgan’s house, and that lie was not there long. Ho said his own brother had acted the, spy on him, and in that manner he was discovered. He told mo it was np use his denying that ho had been with Mrs. Morgan. He seemed to bo anxious to live with his wife again, and seemed to want me to exercise any influence I had to induce her to, go back to him.

Mrs. George (the petitioner) recalled: I wont to Mrs. Morgan’s because Mr. George’s brother told me that on the evening before he had left him at Mrs. Morgan’s house, and that he went there to stop all night.. Mr. George’s brother has since gone, I believe, to Valparaiso. Ho also said bo hated my husband. He said bo left bjm in tho bouse with Mrs. Morgan. My hmband’s brother’s ago was 19. Ho told me ho and his brother had boon to other houses of ill-fame that evening. He knew I wanted to find out something against my husband about women, I had reason to believe hb was going with other women. After I left him his shopmates told, me that be had gone.

with other women before we separated. I had to tell Mrs. Morgan several things which my brother-in-law told me before she would acknowledge that my husband was at her house. Sergeant Frederick Charles Smith, examined by Mr. Allan : I know Mrs. Morgau. I believe her husband is not living with her. As far as reputation goes, and from what I have seen, I would consider Mrs. Morgan a prostitute. ‘ I have seen men. go into her house and came out of it at night. I have also seen her in the street.

Edward Thomas Sayers, examined by Hr. Allan : lam Mrs. George’s brother. I know Harry George.—Did Harry George ever tell you anything ? Mr. Justice Johnston objected to hearsay evidence being given. Mi 1 . Allan protested that just when he was going to throw light on a subject on which tho Court had expressed doubts he was stopped. Mr. Justice Johnston said the Court must be guided by the rules of evidence. The Court could not receive hearsay evidence of adulterous acts on the part of the respon-. dent. The only evidence the Court had of adultery was given by a witness whose statements on oath had been proved to be untrue by his (Mr. Allan’s) own witnesses. The question was, had adultery been proved by a credible witness ? Hearsay evidence could not be given in proof of the adultery.

Mr, Allan said he would therefore restrict Lis examination to the question of cruelty. Tho witness then deposed to his sister having been ill-treated by the respondent. This was the petitioner’s case. Mr. Allan then proceeded to address the Court on the evidence adduced in support of the petition, contending that tho petitioner had sufficiently made out her case to entitle her to a decree msi

The Chief Justice : I think the case might have been more satisfactorily proved than it has been. Suspicions arise in various stages of tho cause as to the conduct of the parties, and these suspicions have not been sufficiently removed ; I am not going to say not sufficienty for our purpose, but suspicions were aroused, and all these might have been sufficiently and satisfactorily removed by calling evidence. The brother and father might easily have been 9alled. The brother might have been examined or detained until his evidence had been taken. Taking all the evidence, however, that has been given, I think I am justified in concluding that the adultery has been sufficiently proved, partly by the testimony of Mrs. Morgan and the admissions made under circumstances which, I think, justify me in coming to the conclusion that the admissions were bona fide. Cruelty has also been sufficiently proved, and I can see no reason to believe, with the material at present before us, that there has been any collusion for the purpose of tho parties getting a divorce, Therefore I think the petitioner is entitled to a decree.

Mr. Justice Johnston ; X think the cruelty has been abundantly proved—physical cruelty of the grossest kind. Kicking a woman when far advanced in pregnancy, and using her, as we have heard certainly beyond all doubt, with such cruelty as, along with adultery, would constitute a good ground for a divorce. I will say no mord* on that subject. The next question is the question of collusion. No doubt this is one of those cases which necessarily excites in the mind of the Court a large amount of vigilance and care, lest the Court should be turned, into a means of creating and keeping up an amount of immorality that should not exist. The particular feature of this case in respect of collusion with which I was not for some time acquainted was the fact that the respondeat in this case had already, before the commencement of these proce*edings, instituted proceedings which had gone on to a considerable extent for a dissolution of the marriage on account of the adultery ot hia wife, and therefore it was eyident that the respondent was most anxious to get a divorce, and the suspicion raised by that consideration was not diminished by the fact that in this case he does not plead, as an answer to the petition by her, the charge of adultery against the wife which | he himself set up as a ground for his petition for a divorce against her. That suggested, probably, that it was a matter of indifference to the husband whether it was through his own suit or the other that ’ a divorce was obtained, and that ho was quite willing to depart from his charge of adultery agiinst his wife in order to secure his divorce by submitting to the wife’s petition in this case. These were strong grounds for examining the case in all its details with much care and criticism, and when we find that the adultery is mqinly proved through a person about whom I should ...like to say as few unkind words as possible, but still who has been procured unquestionably for the purposes of this suit, and has not given her evidence in a way that would entitle her to credit, because at an early,, period of her examination she had ample opportunity of telling the truth; but instead of teHing the truth she tells that which is perfectly false, and counsel has been allowed to do that which would not be permitted an ordm iry suit, namely, to call other witnesses in order to get rid of one evident objection to her evidence. There ia a great deal of unexplained doubt as to the real sequence of events which have led to the procuring of her testimony ; and although there are ingenious suggestions mad© about the respondent waylaying Mr. Samuels and expressing a wish to live again with his wife, still the respondent candidly and emphatically admits the existence of that adultery which is necessary to make out the petitioner’s case. Upon the whole, I have come to the conclusion that there is evidence which justifies us in believing that there was adultery as well as cruelty. Therefore, X think she i-» entitled to her decree nisi.

Mr. Justice Gillies : There is quite enough evidence ‘f cruelty and adultery, and therefore I don’t s,ge any reason why a decree nisi should not be granted.

Mr. Justice Williams : There is ample evidence of cruelty. As to the adultery, the Court would not have been justified iu coming to a decision on the testimony of Mrs. Morgan alone, but that has been corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Samuels as to his conversation with tho respondent, who at once admitted the fact to him. There is no evidence that the petitioner was at all in collusion with the respondent to obtain a divorce. The petitioner is entitled to her decree. • * Decree nisi on the usual terms. The Court adjourned till next dayat 11.5 a.m.