REMARKABLE CASE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 1, 2 June 1913, Page 8

REMARKABLE CASE

DIVORCE REFUSED. JUDGE'S SCATHING CRITICISM OF PETITONER. Auckland, May 30. "Nothing in tUe annals of the court could be more extraordinary," was the remark.made by Mr. Justice Edwards. at the Supreme Court to-day when delivering judgment in the divorce suit in which Robert Henderson petitioned for. decree nisi against his wife, Emilie Jeanie Henderson, on grounds of misconduct, Thomas George Drenzy being cited as co-rcspond«at. The case was heard, at the November sittihjgs of the court, and His Honor said he would take time to consider his decision.

In the course of his judgment,' HieHonor made some very scathing criticism regarding the conduct of the part* ies concerned: In the case. After re*. marking on the hct that petitioner hid' been guilty of collusion and connivance, he read a remarkable letter written by the potiti&ner to, respondent, which had been put in'as evidence during the hearing of the case. In the epistle the writer complained that he was financially embarassod:. ''l ; want to go south. I need a suit. I have to pay £5 toi », and £S to ." ,The letter continued: "And 1 liow am I goiflg to get money for, our divorce. You must help me in every* - possible way to get some money.. L 4t' you see 'T.G.'' (referring to co-respond-ent) tell" him I know of his feelings towards you. If he promises to make it wortHi while tell him I will make it possible for him to help you. If T.G.* - were- to come over and stop a night with us or get a house or suitable apartments,. T, of course, will not be supposed to have seen you." The writer urged l that everything should be kept qmefc in view of the divorce proceeding* "This," said His Honor, "was a disgraceful endeavour on the part of the petitioner to sell his own wife for We own end; to make his wife an agent for entering into a disgraceful bargain. Among the extraordinary incidents waa that respondent pretended that she had been confined. She borrowed, begged, stola, or bought someone else's baby, which Bhe passed off as her own and sometimes as the co-respondentV Ultimately petitionee endeavoured to obtain a sum of £3O from co-respondent as expenses he nad been put to in ushering the child into the world. Some time later, he accompanied his wife to Prince*, street, and waited outside the office of . co-respondent for three-quarters of' an hour while the woman was in' there, ostensibly collesting £3O; andi yet the, petitioner asked me to believe that he did not know that by his action he was conniving :<t misconduct between the> .

parties. "Man is fr.il], and woman, unfortunately, is frail too, and I am opposed to> keeping persons together when it i* better that they should part. There ar* eases in which parties have' been df« voreed after misconduct on the part of either husband or wife, and have there- * after lived reputable lives and have been . parents of respectable children. This hi not the case in the present insfianc*. However, a man such as petitioner ia absolutely unfitted to be the husband of any woman. The woman undoubtedly was guilty of misconduct during 'the earlier married life of the parti'eSy but the man's later conduct was as disgrace- • ful as it could bo. Am I bound', because the woman* went wrong, to grant the '. relief of this court to a man- who baa licensed his wife to compromilse herself with the corespondent in order to pro-- j fit by it—a. man who has made his wife an agent in this disgraceful transaction! I think not. A petitioner who claim* this court's jurisdiction must have clean hands.. I say without hesitation such abuse will not be tolerated in a court where I preside, until a higher tribunal hn« held that it must be tolerated." In dismissing the petition without costs, His Honor added that he would not allow co-respondent costs, as his conduct, although not so disgusting as petitioner's, called for the strongest condemnation. Neither would respondent be allowed coats.