DIVORCE SUIT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 38

DIVORCE SUIT.

m STOBY OF A BROKEN HOME. A PUBLIC MAN'S DOWNFALL. (Fsou Otjb Owk Cobbeseohdent.) LONDON, July 30. A, decree nisi, with the custody of the children, was pronounced by Mr Justice Bigham in the Divorce Court on Thursday in favour of Mr I'Anson, of WaJeall, against Mrs I'Anson and Mr Oldbury, corespondent, aged 65, now residing somewhere in New Zealand. His Lordship said that the petitioner had Buffered a very cruel wrong, and the jury assessed the damages at £1500, but it was stated that considerable difficulty might be experienced in obtaining the money. Mr Walter Frampton represented the petitioner, and Mr Hume Williams, K.C., the respondent and co-respondent. In opening the case, Mr Frampton eaid that his client, Mrr William I'Anson, sought the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Christina I'Anson, on the ground of her misconduct with Mr Isaiah Oldbury. This misconduct was denied, and t>he respohdenD alleged a number of alternative offences /against her husband — condionation, connivance, cruelty, miaeonduct, and unreasonable delay in bringing the petition to that court. The co-respondent, in addition, to .denying that he had oomnMtted misconduct, had raised another issue— namely, tha* he was no longer domiciled, in England, but domiciled in New Zealand, and therefore was not amenable to the jurisdiction of that court. Mr Justice Bigham ; Wien did he change his. domicile? * Mr Frampton: When he eloped with my client's w.ife. Counsel, continuing, told th-3 jury that they would not be troubled with that issue, because the co-respondent raised it at the beginning of the year by a notion, and the judge found that there was no bona fide change of domicile, that Oldbury left this country to avoid the consequences of bis act, and the application was refused. Counsel 6aid he was going to ask for heavy damages against the 00-rer|pondent, as the case was a very serious oik. Not __ only had the co-res-pondent, by means of the position he held, deprived the petitioner of his wife and her society, but also by means- •of his wealth he had been enabkd to bribe the t three children of the marriage and remove them from the jurisdiction of. the courts The children were also in New Zealand^ when it was able to locate them last. Petitioner was for eight years in the Durham Constabulary, but* left the force Md bacame a licensed victualler. He Married hi* wife in 1889 at the Stockport registry office, Durham, and there were three children of the marriage. His wife assisted him in corotrolling the hotel, and they made two or three movements. In 1899 he took the Talbot Hotel at Wednesbury, Staffordshire* and there they met the co-respondent, Mr Isaiah Oldbary, who was an ixle mqpufacturer. Mr Oldbury had been for three successive years Mayor of Wednesbury. 'he was an aJderman of the borough, a member of the Staffordshire County Council, and a justice of the peace. Further, fche co-respondent was amarried man with a grown up family, and altogether was a. well-known man in Wednesbury. ' From 1903 he became a frequent visitor to Hue hotel. Up to that time the I'Ansons had lived in perfect , happiness, but about 1903 persons in Wed»*eslvj.ry lsegan to tal'lt and wonder why tHe Mayor so frequently visited the Taltoot llotsl. As the respondent attended to the , commercial side and thereby came in touch with the co-respondent, the husband spoke to her, and she replied thevo was nothing in it. However, during 1904, there were \i.ords on one or two occasions between M.r and Mrs I'Anson on account of the visits ot the 00-respondeiit, but Mr I'Anson, !!ev«r at any time thought that anything furious was happening. Matters went on until the morning of February 14, 1905. On that day Mr I'Anson got r<p, went downstairs, and ascertained that his wife had Eeffc Wednesbury for Birmiingiiam, taking wibh her all the money that happened to be in the hotel at that time. Petitioner heard that she had gone fo America, and caused inquiries to be made, but failed to trace her. Six weeks later the three children disappeared, and these conld not be traced. Petitioner now began to suspect the co-respondent. • All this time the co-respondsnt had remained in "Wednesbury, and this to some extent allayed suspicions, but in September, 1905, it was given out in the council chamber and jhe local press that the Mayor waa about to take a holiday and that he intended to go to South Africa on business and pleasure combined. " He did not resign hia office, which did not expire until November, and neither did he resign from the County Council, on which h« bad another year to serve. But he did not come back. * In 1907 a Wednesbury man returned from New Zealand, and told Mr I'Anson that both his wife and Mr Oldbury and the children bad been seen in New Zealand. Inquiries were made, and it was ascertained that all of them were living at Whitesbridge, Christchnrch. Petitioner filed his suit on September 7, 1907. and this had to be served in New "Zealand. The respondent and co-respondent then alleged every possible matrimonial offenoe against the ixjtitioner, but in most vague and general terms, and could not give the name of any woman with whom he had been supposed to misconduct himself. • Proofs were wanted of these charges, and yet no details were forthcoming. Then came the application of the co-respondent to dismiss the case on the ground of no domicile. Oldbury said he had left the country because of domestic differences of his own;, that he had realised the whole of his property in England, and had nothing left of his own here; that he had acquired some 97 acres ot land in New Zealand, and at a somewhat advanced age he had become a cattle' drover and farmer ; that he was exercising the parochial and municipal rights at Christchurch. and therefore ought not to be called upon for any misconduct in England nor to compensate the man whose wife and family he had taken away. Counsel went on to say they now knew that any monetary verdict in Eng-lnad would he very difficult ta execute in Npiv Zealand." but when they had the order for the custody of the children Mi I'Anson would be able to get back his children. The allegations against the husband had only been pat in order to delay the hearing of the •uit, and enable Oldbury to realise his English property, so that respondent and cottspondent could make it more difficult for

Mr I'Anson to recoA'er damages and bis three children. Petitioner had since discovered that in 1903, when Oldbury was a frequent visitor at the hotel, Mrs I'Anson herself gave instructions that Oldbury was always to be admitted to the commercial room, that she would wait on hirn^ and that none of the i maids was to go in the room. On one occasion the door was slightly ajar, and one of the maids passing by saw Mrs I'Anson sitting on OLdbury's knee. On another occasion a maid had to take- water to Mrs I'Anson's bedroom', and, when crossing the landing a little later, she saw the co-respon-dent leave the room, followed by the respondent. On a further occasion a young man playinjr billiards in the billiard room, on the same landing wliere Mrs I'Anson's bedroom was, saw Mrs I'Anson and Oldbury leave the bedroom — the former goin^ down a private staircase, and the latter the public stairs. A few days after this Mrs I'Anson gave this young man a ticket for a dance, and asked him to say nothing about what he had seen, and later on gave him 5s to go to Birmingham and buy her a spade guinea, which coin was not given to her husband Counsel asked the jury to say that this was a case where heavy compensation should be given to the husband for the loss of his wife and family. At this stage Mr Hume Williams, K.C., said that he ought to inform the court how the defence stood. His clients held a retainer for the respondent and co-respon-dent to represent them. The parties were in New Zealand, and their solicitors there were Messrs Hill and Fraser. In April of this year, affcer the evidence had been collected for the purpose of that suit, a letter was received by counsel's London clients from Messrs Hill and Fraser, who wrote that the respondent and co-respondent had left their address without giving any information of their present place of residence. Mrs I'Anson told (he firm some weeks ago she was afraid of some rumours that had reached her. In the circumstances they asked that the defence to the action should be stopped, and they presumed that Mrs I'Anson and Mr Oldbury would not care to go on with the defence, especially in view of the action over the domicile. Messrs Hill and Fraser regretted that the matter could not have been fought out to a finish, as they believed a very good defence could have been made out. Counsel said he' was' in a dilemma. If they went on with the case and presented their evidence thair clients in New Zealand might say, ' '• We told you not to go on," while if they did noc present their evidence the King's Proctor might have something to say. He was prepared to adopt any course his Lordship suggested. . The learned judge declined to advise any course, but said that if counsel tendered no evidence against the petitioner he would have the' particulars sent to the King s-Procj-or, who might, if he thought proper, inquire into the matter. Mr Frampton said he was there with witnesses to meet those charges. The Learned Judge: The case will resolve itself into formal proof of the wife s misconduct. Mr Williams: Perhaps your Lordship will give me a moment to consult my client as to what course we shall adopt. Mr Frainpton: Your Lordship will see from the letter that eren my learned friend's clients in New Zealand could not 'trace the address of these people. I The Learned Judge: That is obvrous. t Mr Williams: I have consulted my clients in reference to the letter I have read to 1 your Lordship instructing them not to carry the case any further. It will not be their duty, therefore, further to contest this case and we now withdraw. 1 The Learned Judge (to Mr Frampton) : Please give evidenoe of misconduct, i William I'Anson, of 60 Arundel street, Walsall, said he married his wife on June > 24, 1889, at the Stockport registry office, 1 Durham, and there were three children, their ages in 1905 being 15, 13. and 10 years. The eldest was a boy. H« went to the Talbot Hotel. Wednesbury, in 1897, a»d it was not until 1903 rhat Mr Old-bury made his acquaintance. Mr Oldbury became a frequent customer, and "was at the time Mayor of Wednesbury and a justice ' of tho peace. The Learned Judiro: I <loir krow why ' wo jre to.d t-iis every time. Ii is quite immaterial. Mr Frampton: "Ha\in^ re-rard to tho conduct of the man, I think it aggravates the- case. . The Learned Judge: Do you think than because a man happens to he a iustice of^ ] the peace he fhouW be punished heavier •t.ha.n a man who has not obtained that honour? I Mr Frampton: T have h&a.v-d it stated in other courts that the position of a man is sometimes an aggravation. 1 The Learned Judge: I also have heard that said. I said it myself sometimes.— (Laughter.) . Witness (continuing) detailed how his wife disappeared in February, 1905. then th* children in April, while Mr Oldbury "went in September. All efforts to trace the parties proved fruitless. Finally, toward the end of 1907 a Wednesbury man who had returned from New Zealand told witness that he had seen all the parties ir> Cbristohurch. He at once instructed his solicitors Witness never saw any act of famillaritv between his wife an<l Oldbury. Witness tnen denied on oath that, he had ever condoned or connived at his wife's misconduct, and there was no truth in the cfiarges ma-dc ftjrainsi hi»r>. Mrs Winifred- Mary Iliffe. wife of Harold Iliflfa. of 106 A&hton rn\tl, OMham. forraerlv in the emnlov of the pplition^r, and j Mr Josenh Frank Johnson. «»lectrieil enarij neer. of Wednesburv. spoke as t<"> th<* misconduct which counsel mentioned in iiies | opening statement. I His Lortlshio, in summing up. */ii<l it .». was clear that the respondent and 00-re-spondent were living together, that they took the three ohildr«n from the petitioner, and that his home had been broken up. For these things there was no justification whatever. The petitioner had lost his home, his wife, ard his children. a«d hAd suffemd a very serious wrong, which could not be measured by any money compensation. In aaeessinsr "damages the jury mu*t award compensation wibh no nieward hand. Tt was a ease for real substantial damages for a very serious wrong that could never bo out right. After a few seconds' deliberation the j iury returned & verdict far th<> p^tition<»r, , RJMassiner damasks 4t £1500. The iurv also ! f-^ur.d tliat tho eharRPS against the petition p>r -\vf>ro rv»t r>rov^d. I Mr .lustirn Bijrhim ordered" a decree nisi, I nri<) crave th« iWitioner tha <u=^-<~-rlv of tho . children. Petitioner «a' fiutli^r pivon • costs against Ihe co rcsnomleiit, a; tl hi*

! Lordship made an order that no costs be allowed the wife.