Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

DIVORCE JUGGLE
SOME PLAIN TALK.
■ JUDGES DECEIVED.
Mr. Justice Darling commented a few,
weeks ago on'the way in which, the Lon
don Divorce Court is "constantly, de
ceived." v
His lordship was giving judgment in1
the case, begun early in [June, concerning
a woman, two husbands, and a little boy.
Mr. Lionel Martin, an automobile engi
neer, of Pembroke Villas, Kensington,
claimed two sums, £218J and £150, from
Mr. Robert Hervey Kay," of Victoria-road
south, Southsea, whose divorced wife Mr.
Martin had married.
The defence to the claim for £150 paid
by Mr. Martin to Mr. Kay was that the j
payment was made under -circumstances
contravening public policy. In regard to
the £218, which Mr. \ Martin said was
money >nt, Mr. Kay alleged that it wa3
paid for the purpose of procuring hia wife
to go and cohabit with Mr. Marian.
In 1912 a boy wa3 born to Mr. Kay and
i Jus wife, and a feature of the case, coun-I
sei said, was the devotion of all concerned
to this child.
Mr. Justice Darling, giving judgment,
sa.id Mrs. Martin had told him "that
although there was a divorce the Divorce
Oourt was absolutely deceived, that no
adultery had taken place between her and
Mr. Martin before then, and that the
whole thing was a juggle. His lordshit>
was quite prepared to believe her. The
Divorce Court was constantly deceived in
that way. "Everybody who knows that
court/' ie said, "knows it, and most diffi
cult it isj for" the judges who sit -there to
find out' whether the court is being im
posed upon or not. Everybody who
cares to read the newspapers would kno.v
that a very well-known man explained
afterwards to anybody who might be inte
nsted to know that he had not been guilty
of adultery at all, although he was di
vorced and married again. (The reference
is apparently to Colonel Josiah Wedgwood,
M.P.). Exactly the same tihing, it is sain
by Mrs. Martin, took place m tnis case."
The £218 Payment.
His Lordshit) had to ask himself whe
ither Mir. Martin advanced the £218—to
Mr. Kay • upon a promise thait Mr."r'Ka$r
would repay it, or whether Mr. Martin, did
so simply 'because he was in love with
Mrs. Kay, was most solicitous abo>uit her
health, and waa determined to marry her
if he had the chance.
He waa mot satisfied that ithe money was
advanced as a loan or was paid to doc
tors or others oil a promise, express or
implied, that Mr. Kav would repay it.
Therefore there would be. judgment- if<Jr
the defendant, Mr. Kay. in. regard to thait
action.
As to the claim for the £150 -hie Lord
ship was satisfied thait the real considera
tion for that was ithe deed entered' into
by Mr. Kay with reference to' the child.
But he came to the conclusion thait £50
of that sum was paid jy Mr. Martin to
Mr. Kay in aresReat of costs in the Divorce
"Court, whioh Mr. Martin long before had
promised to pay to Mr. Kay.r The £100
was paid as a consideration to induce Mr.
Kay to sign the deed to give up the
custody and control of his son. There
■was nothing illegal in entering into the
deed, but the only consideration for the
deed was £100; the other £50 was already
due, deed or no deed.
i> urniture as Pledge.
As to a counter-claim, in. respect of fur
niture, he believed Mis. Martin's evidence
ithat in order to secure execution of the
deed Mr. Kay pledged hie furniture with
the plaimtiif. There was no reason in law
why Mr. Martin should not hold the
pledge. The value of the furniture his
Lordship assessed at £50. i
The Tesult, therefore, >was judgment for
Mr. Kay on the plaintiff's claim for £218
and coats; judgment for Mr. Martin for
£ 100 and costs on his claim for £150, and
judgment for Mr. Martin on the counter
claim, with the right to retain the pledged
furniture.
"Hlis. Servant, NotfHis Wife." k
Mrs. Katherine Martin * giving evidence,
said she was formerly the wife of Mr.
Kay. In September, 1915, she went to
Scotland with her child, another woman,
and Mr. Martin. vOn that trip she did not
misconduct herself with Mr. Mar tin.
Mr. Valefctaj—In a letter you wrote that
you had gone away with Mr. Martin and
was staying with him as his wife?—I had
been Irang with Mr. Kay for four years
evtremely uncomfortably. I was more o*
less his servant and not his wife. We occj
pied separate 'bedrooms. I- wrote thai
letter when I first went away, and would
havo said anyUnng .to be free from Mr.
Kay
Later Mr. Justice Darling said:—'You
wr'ite—'"I can only ask. as a great fav- r
that you will divorce me and make it pos
sible for Martin to marry me." Did you
mean that he might aecmse you and Mar
tin of adultery and that you would not de
fend an action for divorce?—Quite rigjht
Mr. Justice Darling—A collusive action
in the Divor-e Court. There are plenty
of them. Several every day.
In reply to Mr. Justice Darling, Mrs.
Martin said she was 23, and Mr. Kay 33,
when they were married, i He was then
a chauffejr on weekly wages.
What had vou been?—I am a clergyman'*
daughter. My fa-ther is a country clergy
man in Devonshire.
Mr Justice Darling—Country clergymen
are not in a better 'imancial position than
chauffeurs (Laughter.) You were'in a
better social position?—No. Mr. Kay is
supposed to be a gentleman. He is the
son rf Colonel Kay, of the Border Regi
ment1 ,
Did you many him with the consent; of
your patents?—No, my parents were very
much upset about it.
She denied having committed adultery
with Mr. Martin beiore she married'hinr^
Mr. Justice Darling—So the Divorce
Court was imposed upon altogether?—It
was.
Hia Lordfilip—We are quite accustomed
to it
First Husband's Letter.
Mr.Kay, the defendant, said that when
liis wife was ill he was not in a position
"to pay £100 for an operation. It was quite
untrue that Mr. Martin was urged by him
to pay the sums claimed. When the boy's
fixture was discussed it was explained to
him that £150 would be paid to him as
some sort of reparation for the trouble
and expense he had Ibeen put "to since 1915.
Mr. Scott—It 'is suggested that you
were offered £100 if you would promise to
execute lie deed, a present or brJbe to you
to give up the child?—That is a lie.
'"Every Mile Has Its Scourge."
Mr. Yaletta—In 1915 you wrote to your
then wife:—"My last thought at night and
my first thought on waking is of you. My
■behaviour to you and my ingratitude
weighs on ine all the time. Every mile of
the road has its scourge for me.' What
were you repentant ai>out?—The general
upset. The letter continued:—''"If ever a
man is repentant it is I. I have absolutely
ached to have you and hear you speak to
me with the tenderness of your voice. Do
not think it is my pride 'that asks you to
come back. It is one long ache. I have
to get you, to treat you properly and make
amends for what you have been -through."
Had she been througih much at your
hands?—No, she said she had.
If it was untrue to say that you tried to
strangle her, why; didn't you take the
trouble to deny it in your letter?—Was it
worth it then? I think she had eloped with
Martin by that date.
Counsel read another letter written by
Mr. Kay to his wife, ending with the
phrase. "Oh, Jimmie, Jimmie, for the lo.'e
of God, don't do it" •
Mr. Justice Darling eventually gave
judgment as reported above.
$