The Tumut and Adelong Times 17 Dec 1929
THE BAKER DIVORCE CASE CONSOLIDATED SUITS BOTH PETITIONS DISMISSED , In the Sydney Divorce Court last week Edgar Joseph Baker, carrier, TUmut, petitioned Mr. Justice Owen for a dissolution of his mar riage will Edith Mary Baker (form arly Purcell), on the ground of her adultery, between March, 1923, and February 17, 1929, with one William Bates (who was joined as corespon dent) at Tumut; Glebe, Sydney, Wentworthville and other places. Respondent filed an answer, in which sne uenieu petitioners allegations, uid alleged condonation on the part of petitioner. In a cross-petition he sought a divorce on the grounds of habitual drunkenness, cruelty and ssault. The co-respondent also de nied the charge of adultery, and al leged that, if such had been commit ted, petitioner had condoned it. The co-respondent, an electrician, had been a boarder at the home of the parties to the suit, and in June or July of 1923 had got £19 into ar rears with his payments. When pe titioner said the co-re must pay up or get out, the respondent replied, And if he goes, I'll go.' Edna Smith (now Mrs. McGuinness), at one time of Tumut, wrote a letter to the respondent, which was shown to petitioner, stating that she had all the letters respondent had written from Tumut to Bates after he left Tumut, and that she 'could be dirty if she liked.' Edna Smith was then keeping company with Bates. Mrs. Baker left her home for Sydney in February, 1925, taking the baby with her. Respondent followed, and after meeting Bates with his mother at the railway platform at Wentwortli ville went up to him and struck him on the nose. Mrs. Baker had previ ously made a confession of her guilt and went with her husband to seek out Bates. After Bates was struck he also admitted intimacy. Baker agreed to forgive his wife; and con doned her past conduct, and she re turned home about June, 1925, and remained till June, 1928, when she again 'left. A heap of correspond ence of an endearing nature between the respondent and co-respondent was put in as evidence. 'Counsel for Mrs. Baker and Bates raised the issue that there was no 'evidence, against them in view of the fact that Baker had conditionally condoned the offence. Mr.. Toose urged that Mrs. Baker had been taken back conditionally, and in good faith by her husband, she undertaking not to communicate with the co-respondent. Mr. Louat argued that 'the old boy' phrase in Mrs. Baker's letter did not necessarily mean Bates. It was not proved that Bates was meant. His Honor dismissed both peti tions, and ordered Baker to pay the costs of his wife and of the co-re, Bates. He ordered Mrs. Baker to pay the costs of her own petition. His Honor, in dismissing both pe tions, declared that although there was no British definition of condi tional condonation, there were seve ral recorded decisions in our own courts on the subject. Where a wife had committed adul tery and her husband took her back on conditions condoning the offence, he could not revive the old adultery by pleading that she had broken the conditions. The breach did not constitute a matrimonial offence, for which a di vorce was obtainable under out di vorce system. The breach of the conditions did not revive the old adultery, because it was not a matrimonial offence of which our law could take notice. |