A FIJI DIVORCE CASE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 451, 5 March 1890, Page 6

A FIJI DIVORCE CASE.

A rather romax-kable divorce case came on for hearing befoi-e Chief Justice Sir H. S. Berkeley at Suva, Fiji, on Friday, Januax-y 24fch. The case occupied the attention of the Court for three days, the tr a terminating on Tuesday, January 28bh. Ebenezer A. Potter, of the firm of Potter Bros., butchers, Levuka, petitioned the Court for a divorce from his wife, Elizabeth Potter, on the ground of her adultery with Mr Francis Graham Woodhouse, a gentleman of independent means, from whom ho claimed £I,OOO as damages. Mr W. J. Thomas appeared for the petitioner, Mr J. F. Garrick, Q.C., for the co-respond-ent, and Mr P. S. Solomon, Q.C., for the erring wife, who is a young half-caste woman of very prepossessing appearance. Mr Thomas, in opening, the case for the petitioner, said the petitioner was married some years ago to the respondent, and they had cohabited together until the middle of October last, when the husband became aware of his wife’s infidelity and had instituted the present proceedings. It seemed that sometime pievious Potter had sought monetary assistance fx-onx Woodhouse, and the business relations thus established between them had subsequently developed into friendly intimacy, of which the co-x-espond-enb had taken dishonoux-able advantage dui-ing Potter’s occasional absence from home. Potter discovered his wife’s unfaithfulness in rather a curious way. In the month of October, the petitioner took his wife with him in his cutter, the Princess,” to a neighbouring island. Her brother was also on board, and during the trip Mrs Potter and he had a quarrel,in the course of which he exclaimed, “ I wish I had left you and the old man burn together the night of the fire !” These words aroused Potter’s curiosityandsuspicion. Callinghis brother-in-law forward, he learned from him that during the night of the great fire in Levuka, on April 6th, while he himself was absent from home, the “old man” Woodhouse had been with his wife, and apparently had a narrow escape. About a fortnight after the fire, Woodhouse left for Samoa. When the Princess arrived at Levuka, Potter had a long convex-sation with his wife, during which she made a full confession of her guilt, stating that the co-respondent had supplied her with money, and caused her to give way to drink. She wept bitterly ; but her tears were not those of repentance, for when her husband asked her why she was crying she said it was because Woodhouse had. been unfaithful to her, and she declared that il the co-respondent had not left hex- for a Samoan rival, she would never have confessed anything. The petitioner was examined, and stated that he married the respondent in July, 1881, when she was about 10 years of age. Their married life had been a fairly happy one.. One child had beeix born to themy a daughter, now 3i- years old. Before Mrs Potter had become acquainted with Woodliouse her conduct had been unexceptionable, but since her intimacy with the corespondent she had taken to drink. Evidence of the respondent’s misconduct with Woodhouse was given by Clara Watkins, a Fijian woman, and mother of the respondent,, by a Fijian boy and a Polynesian boy in petitioner’s employment, and also by GeorgeWatkins, a half-caste husband of Clara Watkins, and stepfather to Mrs Potter. The l-espondenb had entered an appearance after the time limited by the rules, but had filed no answer and made no defence, Mr Solomon only appeax-ing in support of her claim for the custody of the child. The answer filed by the co-respondent denied the charges of adultex-y, and alleged that Mrs Potter had been leading an abandoned life, that there had been condonation of the adultery, and that there was collusion between Potter and his wife with regard to the divorce: proceedings. Mrs Potter had been summoned as a witness, but when called she did nob appear. Mr Thomas urged that she was neither a competent nor compellable witness. Mr Garrick contended that, for the co-respondent she was botlij competent and compellable, and Has applied for a writ of attachment compelling her to attend in obedience to the subpoena. —His Honor held that she could be compelled to attend and granted the application. - On the following morning Mrs Potter was in attendance, and also in tears, but no evidence of any importance was elicited from her. The co-respondent was not examined, nor any witnesses on his behalf,and no evidence whatever was tendered in sup port of the plea of condonation. After Mr Garrick had addressed the Court and Mr Thomas had replied, judgment was delivered. His Honor said the evidence as to the adultery between the respondent and co-respondent was positive, direct, and uncontradicted, and the co-respondent had not been called even to deny the statements. As to the allegation that the respondent had been leading an. abandoned life, he did not think that was the correct term to use. It was applicable to the life of a prostitute, bub not to Mrs Potter’s conduct. There was no evidence, either, to prove collusion. Mr Garrick had relied on the statement made by Mrs Potter to her husband, and also on the fact that she had attended periodically on Mr Thomas, her husband's solicitor, for weekly payments allowed her for her support pending the divorce suit; but these things did not establish ‘collusion. With regard to the amount of damages, although it was true that the measure of damages was,, as Mi? Garrick had pub it, the value of the arbicl© of which the petitioner had been deprived, and the means of the co-respondent were not to be taken into consideration, yet the. evidence went bo show that the petitioner had originally possessed a very good article. His wife was a young woman of very considerable personal charms, and until had been debauched by the co-respond-ent, she had apparently been all that a wife should be. Mr Thomas was perfectly right in contending that the co-respondent could not bo allowed to plead his own wrongful acts in mitigation of damages. Judgment would therefore be given for £3OO and costs. Mr Solomon applied that the mother should have the custody of the child for at least, some years. Mr Thomas submitted that the lxxoral suri’oundings of the mother were not of a nature calculated to benefit the child. His Honor took time to consider his decision, and ultimately ordered thatthe father should hav the custody of the girl, reasonable acees being allowed to the mother.