Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

A FRANK WIFE

'1 LOVE SOMEONE ELSE' DECREE NISI GRANTED

Outstanding characteristics of the par ties to a divorce petition heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Robt. M'Millan) this morning were the frankness of the wife and the forgiving nature of the husband. Charles Ernest Stanley Cook, a school teacher,' was The petitioner. According to evidence his wife, Grace Florence Cook, was given every opportunity to mend her ways, but she was a woman of purpose, and made no effort to hide where her af fections lav. Cook alleged adulterv. and

cited Reginald Hobson, a barber, as co respondent. Neither Hobson nor Mrs. Cook put in an appearance. Petitioner was re presented by Mr. O. J. Negus. The parties were married on October 14, 1921, at the residence of the respondent's father at Lake Yealering. Two # children were born, one of whom was still living. According £0 the petitioner's story he was now living at Moonyoonooka. He and his wife lived at Lake Yearlering after the marriage until 1925, when they moved to Moonyoonooka. In September, 1926, his wife paid a visit to Perth, and returned in November. While in the metropolis he learned that She had been Working.

She remained with him them for three weeks, when she returned to Perth, and stayed there until he followed her in De cember. He found that the respondent was staying at a placo in Hay-street, where the man he now knew to be Hobson con ducted a barber's shop. 'We -.decided to live together again,'' Cook said, 'and we shifted to a house in Aberdeen-street, Perth, and stayed thero until eariy in 1927, when I had to go back to Moonyoonooka. She refused to como back with me.' Petitioner said that various letters passed between them. His solicitors read one of these, in which Mrs. Cook frankly confessed that when she left him first sho did not love iim. 'When I got to Perth,' she wrote, 'I met Someone Whom I Did Love. I am married to you and love someone else.' She intimated in the same letter

that she was going to live with this man, the person she loved, until he could marry her, which would be when she would be divorced. Petitioner said he appealed to his wife again to return to him, but his call went unheeded. His wife told him in a letter than the man whom she loved was named Reg. Hobson, and that he was a barber. 'In May,' the petitioner continued, 'I went to Greenbushes with my wife's father. We proceeded to the local hotel and learned there that people^ named Mr. and Mrs. Hobson were conducting a board ing-house and barber's shop in the town. We went to this place, and I asked the maid if I could see Mrs. Hobson. The maid went off, and while she was absent Hobson appeared on the scene. I asked him if I might see Mrs. Hobson, and he, too, went off, saying she would be out in a minute or two. My wife came out. I said to her, 'So you are Mrs. Hobson; I Thought You Were Mrs. Cook!' She asked me to go upstairs to the sitting room. I wanted Hobson to join us, and she said he would as soon as he had shaved. We went to the sitting-room and talked together. I asked her if she would return to me. She replied, 'Would you have me back?' Hobson then entered, and I mentioned the trouble he had caused by robbing tZ»c child of its home and referred to his unfairness to myself. He said that that cut both ways, as they had been pre pared to take the child. I asked him if he thought I would allow him to have the child. I

Lost my Temper Then and struck him. The lights went out, and he got out of the room in the darkness. I then left.' . Petitioner said that he returned the fol lowing day and found a note left by his wife. It explained that she (respondent) would probably be well on her way to Perth by the time he read it, and she suggested an appointment in Perth. He came to the city, and meeting her they had a conver sation, as the result of which he agreed to take her back. She was to return to him within a few days with the child, but she had not done so. 'She's in the country somewhere with Hobson, or supposed to be,' concluded the petitioner.

A larw clerk who served the papers on the respondent and co-respondent said that Hobson remarked that he had been expect* injr them for some time. His Honor said he was satisfied on the evidence and from the contents of the let ters that the respondent had committed adultery, with the co-respondent.' The pe titioner had been of a very ? forgiving dis position, probably for the sake of his child. At one fTme- he (his Honor) had thought the t Petitioner was Going Too Far in the way he seemed to be ready to for give the co-respondent. It was, therefore, something of a relief when it was seen that he finally did what a husband might be expected to do in such circumstances. . ? ; A decree nisi was granted, with custody of the child, and an order for costs made against the co-respondent. . . ?

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down