Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

BURNIE SUPREME OMSKT.
A DIVORCE CASE.
CASEY V. CASEY AND ETCHELLS.
, THE PETITIONER'S ADMISSION.
BURNIE, August l8.
Mr Justice Ewing presided at a sit-
ting of the Supreme Court at Burnie to
day, when James Leonard Casey made ap-
plication for a dissolution of his marriage
with Lucy Ada Casey, on the ground of
the latter's alleged misconduct with
William Etchells, who was cited as co
respondent Mr. F B Edwards (in-
structed by Mr J W C Hamilton, of
Smithton) appealed for tho petitioner,
and Mr M J Clarke (instructed by Mr
K C Laughton, of Stanley), on behalf
of the respondent and co respondent
Mr. Edwards stated that the parties
were married on August 21, 1916, at
Smithton, by tho Rev T. J. O'Donnell
They lived together for four months
There were no children. On November
25, 1917, petitioner enlisted and on Jan-
uary 7, 1918, left Tasmania for active
service During petitioner's absence at
the war, eight months after he had last
seen his wife, a child was born, and
on May 28, 1920, eight months after his
return, another child was born He was
not the father of cither child
The defence was an absolute denial
of misconduct
In evidence supporting counsel's state-
ment, petitioner deposed that when he
accused his wife of receiving letters
from Etchells, she replied that they
were not the only letters she had re-
ceived from him. She said that Bill
Etchells was a better man than he (peti-
tioner) was. Witness informed her that
if she wanted to, she could go to Bill
Etchells and have him.
His Honor said he was of opinion that
an adjournment was advisable to enable
the parties concerned to confer. He
could not grant a divorce to any man
who admitted having told his wife that
she could go and live with another man
When the Court resumed, Mr Edwards
informed His Honor that he had given
careful consideration to the matter, and
could only say that the petitioner's con
duct, according to the statement he had
made, amounted to connivance, and he
felt that it was his duty to submit to a
dismissal of the petition
Mr Clarke, on behalf of the respond-
ent said he thought it only fair that
it should be made known that Mrs Casey
denied that any misconduct had been
committed It should be made clear
that there was no stain on his client's
character
His Honor There is no stain on her
character, inasmuch as nothing has been
proved up to the present As far as
the conduct of the petitioner is con-
cerned, no man who invites a woman
to misconduct herself with another man,
as admitted bv Casey can come into a
Divorce Court and expect to be relieved
from his wife
His Honor dismissed the petition, with
costs against the petitioner
$