Person Page - 2029

     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.²

LIPSHUT-FAIRLIE - On the 17th January, 1900, at Wesley Church, Hay-street, Perth, W.A., by the Rev. G. E. Rowe, DAVID, eldest son of Samuel Lipshut, Esq., Sydney, N.S.W., to MAUD JANIE, second daughter of W. H. Fairlie, Justice of Peace, Adelaide, S.A. Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney papers please copy.

LIPSHUT-FAIRLIE - On the 17th January, 1900, at Wesley Church, Hay-street, Perth, W.A., by the Rev. G. E. Rowe, DAVID, eldest son of Samuel Lipshut, Esq., Sydney, N.S.W., to MAUD JANIE, second daughter of W. H. Fairlie, Justice of Peace, Adelaide, S.A. Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney papers please copy.

At the Civil Sittings of the Supreme Court on Thursday his Honor the Chief Justice heard a petition brought by Samuel Julian James Morcom, of Halifax street, for a divorce from his wife Alice Mabel Morcom, on the ground of the latter's misconduct with William H Fairlie, of Enfield, who was named as the co-respondent. Mr. P. E. Johnstone appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent or co-respondent.

The petitioner gave evidence to the effect that he was married to the respondent, whose maiden name was Dadsworth on January 3, 1901, at Adelaide. They lived together at Eastwood and other places and finally at Rundle-street. There were four children of the marriage. The witness said he and, his wife had not lived happily together for about six to eight years prior to January last. He became acquainted with the co-respondent in October last on Eight Hours Day, when he was with his wife in Rundle-street, and they met the co-respondant, who was wearing a military uniform. The respondent introduced the co-respondent to the petitioner. On subsequent occasions the witness saw the respondent and co-respondent in each other's company several times. He requested his wife to keep away from the man. She replied that there was no harm in speaking to a friend, The witness told her that he objected to her being in the man's company and she replied that she would not keep away from him.

Edward Smith, agent, said he saw the respondent, who told him she was Mrs. Fairlie. He said, "I think you are Mrs. Morcom." She replied, "I am." The petitioner, who was present, said the woman was his wife. The witness then served her with the citation for divorce, and she replied, "Well that is all right." The witness asked her if she was living as Fairlie's wife, and she replied "yes." He put other questions to her, and after declining to answer, she made an admission. The witness then asked to see Fairlie. Fairlie remarked that he had got into a mess and the witness said it was too late to think of that.

William Henry Brookes, residing at Enfield, said he sought to engage a married couple last January through a registry office. He saw the respondant and co-respondent, who were introduced to him as a married couple in want of a situation. They both signed the name of Fairlie to an agreement. They remained in the witness' service for about a fortnight, and occupied the same room during that time.

His Honor said he would report to the Full Court that he found the allegations of misconduct proved, and that the co-re- spondant was aware that the respondent was a married woman.

Mr. T. S. Poole moved on behalf of Samuel Julian James Morcom for a dissolution of the marriage of the latter with Alice Mabel Morcom the ground of her misconduct with William H. Fairlie. The Chief Justice reported that he found eight allegations of misconduct against the respondent proved, and that the co-respondent knew that the respondent was a married woman. The petitioner was given the custody of two children, aged 13 and 11 respectively, and judgment regarding costs was reserved.¹