The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954)(about) |
Previous issue
Saturday 19 May 1923
Next issue
Send to:
|
2 corrections, most recently by annmanley - Show corrections
IN DIVORCE.
(Before Mr. Justice Owen.)
MASLIN v MASLIN.
This was a petition by Christina Maslin (for- merly Revitt) for a divorce from James Fred- erick Maslin, whom she accused of having committed adultery with a woman named Alice Thornton Mills at various times and places during a period of several years. The petitioner and respondent were married at Jamestown (S.A.) in 1891. His Honor was asked in the suit to exercise his discretion under section 19 of the Divorce Act, and on the question of delay in proceed- ings, owing to somewhat unusual facts dis- closed in the evidence of the petitioner. It appeared that the husband instituted two suits in Adelaide against his wife for divorce on the ground of adultery. The first suit was aban- doned on the intervention of the King's Proctor. A second suit was commenced in 1908, in which Maslin obtained a decree nisi, but on the in- tervention of the Crown the decree was re- scinded. The husband, who was formerly a grazier of wealth and prominence in South Australia, since acquired domicile in New South Wales on taking over Carwoola station, near Bungendore, and his wife instituted the present suit. She stated in evidence that in 1902 Miss Mills came as a governess to their home at Bundaleer station, Culnare (S.A.), and improper relations commenced between her and petitioner's husband, who neglected her (the petitioner). She admitted having lived in adultery with another man, but pleaded that the circumstances condoned her action. Mr.
Alec Thomson, K.C., and Mr. Hammond (in- structed by Messrs. Barker and Jones) ap- peared for the petitioner.
His Honor said that on the evidence before him there were strong circumstancess in the petitioner's favour, and he did not think that
the delay was unreasonable. He therefore granted a decree nisi, returnable in six months.
KNIGHT v KNIGHT.
James Albert Knight sued for a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights against Catherine Phyllis Knight (formerly Hayes), to whom he was married in 1914 at Sydney, according to the rites of the Church of Eng- land. Mr. L. C. Elliott appeared for the peti- tioner, and Mr. E. H. Gardner for the re- spondent. The petition was dismissed.
HART v HART.
The petitioner in this suit, Francis Hart, sued for a divorce from Mabel Flor- ence Hart (formerly Foskett) on the ground of desertion. The parties were married in Liverpool (England) in 1908 at a registry office. Mr. Markell (instructed by Messrs. John Williamson and Sons) appeared for the petitioner. A. decree nisi was granted, return- able in six months.