Person Page - 2015

     ln this case the petitioner, Stephen Bish, of Adelaide, railway guard, sought a dissolution of his marriage with his wife, formerly Jane Fairlie, on the grounds of adultery with David Linpshut and others. Mr. Paris Nesbit, Q.C. with Mr. Ayliffe, for the petitioner. The respondent, Jane Bish, and co-respondent, David Lipshut, did not appear. The parties were married on April 18, 1887, and afterwards lived at North terrace, Mile-End, Currie-street, Sydney-place, off Halifax-street, and Angas-street. There was one daughter, now aged 10 years, tbe issue of the marriage.
     According to the petitioner's evidence the respondent began to go to horse races alone against his wish some four years after the marriage, and though he allowed her £5 to £5 10s. a fortnight for housekeeping she got into debt without his knowledge, and about the same time came home the worse for drink. They separated by mutual consent, he giving her £35. She went to West Australia, and on returning to South Australia agreed to live with her husband. He gave her £22 to furnish a house, but instead of going to a sale, as she said she would, she took her passage for West Australia, in the Marloo. The petitioner induced her to leave the steamer at Port Adelaide and the co-respondent came off the boat also. The petitioner had words with Lipshut on the wharf, Mrs. Bish, who was very much the worse for drink, and her sister being present. Lipshut denied that he knew the respondent was married. He said he knew her in the West and when she was ill, treated her like a sister. They drove from the wharf to Mrs. Bish's sister's place, but Mrs. Bish would not go in because her sister would not allow co-respondent to enter the house.
They stopped that night at an hotel in Port Adelaide, the petitioner, the respondent, and the corespondent each having separate rooms. Next day the petitioner induced his wife to come up to Adelaide, but on the following day she left for Melbourne with the co-respondent.
     After that he made her another home in Rundle-street, Kent Town, but on coming home from work one night at 12 o'clock he found the furniture, which cost £45, gone. His wife said she had sold it to Mr. Gurr at the auction mart for £13. Three days afterwards the petitioner got it back with the exception of £12 worth. He then took a house in Angas-street, but found that the co-respondent came there in his absence. He found a letter from Lipshut in the house suggesting that Mrs. Bish should go to the West with him, where they would both give up the drink and begin life again.
     On August 20, 1898, he went with Mr. J. Cook to a house in Pirie-street at half-past 10 at night and found that the respondent and the co-respondent were living there. The statement that the respondent and co-respondent were living together in Pirie-street was corroborated by three other witnesses, and evidence was also given that they lived as man and wife at the Shakespeare Hotel from October 20 to October 25.
     His Honor said there was no possible doubt with regard to the case. He was abundantly satisfied that there had been adultery, and it had not been conduced or condoned by the husband, and from the way the case had been fought in Chambers there had not been any collusion on his part. A decree nisi would be granted with an interim order for the petitioner to have the custody of the child, and costs against the co-respondent.³