|
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954) (about)
|
Cite: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article9147916
No comments yet.
7 corrections, most recently by mrbh - Show corrections
DIVORCE COURT.
FRIDAY, NOV. 13.
(Before Mr. Justice Hood.) BIDWELL V. BIDWELL.
This was a petition by Leonard S. Bid- well, of Malmsbury, miner, for a divorce from his wife Susanna Bidwell, on the ground of adultery and desertion.
Mr. Kenny appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance for respondent.
The parties were married in 1873, at Kyneton, and Mr. Kenny said they lived together until 1893, when respondent left her husband and went away to Bendigo. The separation occurred through the fami- liarity of the respondent with a man named
Thomas Allen.
The petitioner, in his evidence, said he and his wife lived together at various places until 1883 when they went to Malmsbury, and he had resided there ever since. In October, 1886, they quarrelled about Allen, who used to visit witness's house during his absence. As he could get no satisfactory explanation from his wife about Allen, he ceased to cohabit with her; but they con- tinued to live in the same house. He fre- quently remonstrated with her about Allen. In 1888 she give birth to a child, which was not his, and she would not tell him who was the father of it.
To his Honour.—Sometimes between 1886 and 1893 they did not speak to each other for as long a period as six months. She left him several times between those years, for a week or two on each occasion, and went off to Kyneton or Melbourne. He did not know where she got the money to keep her- self while she was away. There were four children born of the marriage, the eldest being now 22 and the youngest 13.
His Honour said he was clearly of opinion there was no evidence of adultery in the case and he was not satisfied there was any evidence of desertion, contrary to the wish of the husband, who had told a story which he (the judge) entirely disbelieved from end to end. Petitioner said he suspected his wife of misconduct in 1886, but he continued to live with her in the same house for six or seven years, though he had ceased to co- habit with her. According to his state- ment she had a child which was not his, and yet he lived with her for five years after-
wards, although he was so indignant with her conduct that he would not occupy the same room with her. He did not believe his story, and refused to grant the petition.
MILLER V. MILLER.
This was a petition by Susanna Miller for a divorce from her husband, George Miller, on the ground of desertion.
Mr. L. S Woolf appeared for the peti-
tioner. There was no appearance for the
respondent.
The petitioner said she and the respon- dent were married at Dandenong in 1879. He was a miller, and was employed at various places in Victoria after his mar- riage, but he was of drunken habits, and was dismissed for intemperance from all his situations. In 1892 he deserted her, and left her and their three children without any means, and she had not seen or heard of
him since.
An order nisi for divorce was granted, sub- ject to proof being furnished of substituted service having been made on respondent's
sister.
WATSON V. WATSON.
A petition for divorce by Susan F. Wat- son from her husband Joseph Watson, on
the ground of desertion.
Mr. Power, instructed by Mr. Murray, ap-
peared for the petitioner.
The parties were married in August, 1870, at Hotham. The petitioner said her hus- band was a labourer, and sometimes worked as a baker. In 1890 he deserted her and left het in destitute circumstances. There was no cause for the desertion. There were four children of the marriage, two of whom died. She had not seen her husband since
he deserted her.
An order nisi for divorce was granted.
DUNGAN V. DUNGAN.
A petition by Julia Elizabeth Dungan for a divorce from her husband, George Frederick Dungan, on the ground of deser-
tion.
The marriage took place on the 17th May, 1892, at Armadale. Petitioner was then em- ployed as a shopwoman and reispondent was a grocer. They never lived together in a house, and she remained at her parents' residence after marriage. In August, 1892, her husband went to New Zealand, and, in the following December he wrote to her from Dunedin, and sent her 10/. From that time she had neither seen not heard of
him.
His Honour granted the order nisi.