A NUN DIVORCED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 45, 24 February 1915, Page 3

A NUN DIVORCED.

STRANGE CASE iN MELBOURNE.

A Roman Catholic -mm was respondent in a divorce suit before Mr Justice Hodges, in the Divorce Court, Melbourne, on the 12th The petitioner -was John William Parslow (34), and the respondent, who did not appear, was Pauline Elsie leresa Paislow ‘ (34). Respondent was- described as being “now a Roman Catholic nun. Petitioner asked that the marriage be dissolved, on the ground of his wife’s desertion.

Petitioner set out that the parties were 1 married at C'krlton on May 5, PJOSJ. He knew respondent for 18 months before that date, and had been engaged to her for months. Ihe marriage had never been sonsummateu, and on the day after his • wedding he left Melbourne for Lismore, N.S.W., he ibeing at the time employed as a commercial* traveller. Within a few days he received a letter from his wife, stating ;that she was repenting for havirig married him, and that’she could see nothing but ruin- fop .them both. She did not love him, and she wished she had not married him. When petitioner returned to ‘ Melbourne his wife met him, and they talked the matter over. She ,told him that slid l desired to have nothing further to do with him. She stated, in explanation of her conduct, that a number of her girl friends had been in the habit of “chaffing” her about her inability to get a young man, and, in a spirit of bravado, she had told nil her lady acquaintances that she would be married before any of them. That was what prompted her ,to jK. . l! ■. jv»tl i marry. ; Cojansel 1 for petitioner submitted a number of letters which- had been received from the respondent. On August 12, 1903, she wrote to petitioner from the Girls’ High School, Sale, saying:—“l think matters had better remain as they are. My feelings are still the same, and after further thought I think it would be impossible for me to be happy with •you.'” A further letter, dated February 1, 1904, stated:-—“I have decided to go to Ballarat. Yon know' mV decision. I cannot but think it would be wrong to live with you. If you wish to write after Saturday next, my address will be Loretto Abbey,' Mary’s' Mount, Ballarat. I am going to teach German and mathematics.”

Petitioner made a further request for respondent to return and live with him, and she replied with the following letter:—“Loretto Abbey, Mary’s Monnt, Ballarat,' July 31, 1904. Dear Jack, —I had ‘intimated that my last letter should indicate what course we should take—that of living apart. But circumstances have arisen with which I should not feel justified in keeping you unacquainted. I have no reason to think you have changed your views, but I should like to know decidedly whether you prefer, as I do, that we should continue* always to live apart. Since-T came to Mary’s Mount T have become a Roman Catholic, and must at any cost practise my religion, which is another reason for continuing as we are. No thought of a divorce influences me in this, for, as a Roman Catholic, I cannot marry again. I am not sure that I am j not already sufficiently absolved from any obligation to live with you, but all I want to do now is my duty towards God.—Your wife, Paula.”

Petitioner made a further request for. respondent to return, and she replied from the Loretto Convent, Milson’s Point, Sydney. The letter was dated May 10, 1905. She said :—“The suggestion is of such vital importance to us both that T cannot immediately answer it. Tf 1 did decide now, it would he to refuse your request. Now I shall wait until I decide what course to take. It is not a question of a few weeks or months, hut as to whether I shall he known as a single or married woman for the rest of my life. My religion, too, would be a greater hindrance than you think. I could not in any way enter into your project. I could never go to your church, and must he perfectly free to go to mine at any time, and yon know how that will hinder you,” On May 20. 1905, petitioner received the following telegram, which was the last communication from respondent:—“To John Parslow, Christ Church; Echuca.—Must practise my belief, so consent impossible.—Paula.” A decree nisi was granted.