THREE TIMES DIVORCED.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1087, 15 June 1882, Page 4

THREE TIMES DIVORCED.

In the London Probate and Divorce Division, in April last, before the Eight Hon. the President, the case of Haggard v. Haggard and Bolles was heard. This was the petition of the husband, who is engaged in the Diplomatic Service, for the dissolution of the marriage by reason of the adultery of his wife with Lieut. Bolles, of the United States Navy. The respondent is an American lady, and she had previously been twice divorced (from Colonel Carroll and Colonel Kinney), when she made the acquaintance of the petitioner in 1875 at Washington, he being then attached to the British Legation there. In that year he married her, but it transpired that his wife was a very violent woman, and was subject to extraordinary fits of temper, the result of which was that the petitioner, after communicating with his father, resolved to accept an appointment then offered to him at Teheran. She wrote him a penitent letter, expressing her regret that she had ever given him cause for any disagreement, and stated that she would be happy to join him when called upon to do so; but in answer to that he stated in positive terms that she must consider his separation as final, and that he would never live with heragain. It appeared that subsequently the respondent returned to America, where ■she made the acquaintance of Lieut. Bolles. She obtained a divorce from her husband on the ground of his desertion, after which she married the respondent. The case was heard some time back, when the adultery of the respondent was clearly established, but the decision of the learned judge was reserved in order that he might coneider the question whether the husband had deserted his wife. His lordship now gave judgment. Having reviewed the facts of the case, he said that he had taken time to consider the point whether or not the circumstances of the desertion were such as to dis-, entitle the husband from the relief he sought. He had reflected upon the ■question, and, dealing with his discretionary power, he thought he could

see the ground upon which he could act; but he wished most emphatically to say that a husband who had left his wife was not excused merely because he allowed her sufficient money. It was a husband’s duty to give bis wife protection, which she could only derive from living a joint life with him. She had undoubtedly committed adultery and endeavored to free herself by contracting another marriage after a divorce in America. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, his lordship said that the husband’s desertion, though not legally justifiable, was capable of being excused sufficiently so as not to deprive him of the remedy he sought; consequently a decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage would be granted.