In the past, newspapers often reported what we would today consider private matters such as divorce hearings. The Divorce Court proceedings were reported in much detail in the papers and this was because one party had to prove the other party was
at fault - reasons such as adultery, desertion or cruelty -
so the hearings made interesting stories for the newspapers and there seemed to be no privacy considerations taken into account. In fact, one report had the heading -
A divorce case of interest to residents of Yannathan and Heath Hill. Also worth noting is that sometimes the Judge refused to grant the divorce, thus the unhappy couple had to remain married.
Women were in a vulnerable position years ago as there was not the Government support we have today - Child endowment was introduced in 1941, the Widows pension (which did not cover single mothers or divorced mothers) in 1943 and the supporting mothers pension in 1973. So, unless the woman could get maintenance or find a job (not an easy thing when there was no child care) or get support from her parents, many women had no choice but to stay with a philandering or violent husband. It wasn’t until 1975 that
no fault divorce came in and one partner just had to show the marriage had an irreconcilable breakdown. Here are some interesting local divorces reported in the papers years ago.
November 1904 - HUNT V. HUNT
Edward Hunt, of Yannathan, sought a divorce from Mabel Jessie Hunt on the ground of misconduct. The parties were married on November 6, 1896, and there were three children. Evidence was given that the respondent was living an abandoned life. A decree nisi was granted. Mr. Hotchin (instructed by Mr. S. Marriott Watson) appeared for the petitioner. Misconduct is a euphemism for sexual relations and I presume an abandoned life is a euphemism for an alcoholic or a woman who was indulging in misconduct.
(
The Argus, November 24, 1904, see
here)
Hunt vs Hunt
February 1909 - LYONS V. LYONS
Joseph Lyons (45) petitioned for a divorce from Mary Teresa Lyons (44) on account of alleged misconduct on her part with Maurice L. Bloustein and Richard Butler, who were joined in the suit as co-respondents. The facts disclosed were that petitioner resides at Monument Creek, and is a school teacher. Bloustein was a watch maker. The marriage took place on 11th January, 1888, at St. Patrick's Cathedral, Ballarat, and there had been no children. For a time petitioner was an hotelkeeper, having been licensee of the Iona Hotel, Garfield. It was there that co-respondent and respondent met, and, as alleged, were guilty of misconduct on 2nd May, 1908. Mr. L. S. Woolf, instructed by Messrs. Courtney and Dunn, appeared for petitioner. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with costs against both co-respondents.
(
The Age, February 24, 1909, see
here)
August 1909 - MARTIN V. MARTIN
William Martin, aged 66, a farmer at Garfield, applied for a divorce from Annie Jane Martin, aged 57, on the ground of desertion, dating from December, 1904. Dr. T. P. M'lnenney appeared for the petitioner. Petitioner stated he was married at the registrar's office, Collingwood, on 15th January, 1895, and one child, now 11 years old, was born of the marriage. Respondent was a widow, with two children, when petitioner married her. While he went into residence on his farm at Garfield respondent was living at North Melbourne. A difference arose between them over the children of the former marriage, and respondent suddenly left her husband, taking with her the child of the marriage and her two other children. William Maloney, medical practitioner, stated that he knew both of the parties intimately. The respondent informed him that she would leave her husband, and he tried to dissuade her from doing so, informing her that the petitioner, a man of some property, had made a will providing for her and her child. She, however, refused to take his advice. He did not know the whereabouts of respondent. Petitioner was still willing to provide for his daughter. A decree nisi was granted.
(
The Age, August 6, 1909, see
here)
May 1912, ROHL V. ROHL
Mary Elizabeth Rohl, 26, of Iona, Gippsland petitioned for a divorce from Oscar Rohl, 30, miner, on the ground of desertion. Mr. L. Woolf (instructed by Messrs. Snowball and Kaufman) appeared for petitioner. The parties were married on 15th October, 1904, and there was one child. Evidence was given that they lived together for about two weeks, after which respondent went to Queensland. He sent his wife £4 or £5 per month until November, 1905, when he wrote that he was coming back to Melbourne. Petitioner, however, had not seen him since. A decree nisi was granted.
(
The Age, May 14, 1912, see
here)
November 1912 GLENISTER V. GLENISTER
Frederick William Glenister, 55, of Bunyip, contractor, petitioned for divorce from Margaret Glenister, 51, on the ground of desertion. Marriage took place on April 28, 1886, and there were for children. It was stated that the respondent threaten to leave home in 1900, and after September, 1905, she declined to live with him. Since 1909 they had been separated. Petitioner took proceedings for divorce in 1910, but owing to lack of money had to abandon them. Mr. Larkin (Reynolds and Larkin) appeared for
the petitioner. A decree nisi was granted.
(
The Argus, November 20, 1912, see
here)
September 1914 - MCKAY V. MCKAY
A divorce case of interest to the residents of Yannathan and Heath Hill came before Justice a'Beckett in the Melbourne Divorce Court last Monday, when Margaret McKay, of Yannathan, sought a dissolution of her marriage with Charles W. A. McKay, aged 46 years, laborer, on the ground of desertion. Mr. Ham appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner, whose age was given as 43 years, stated that the marriage took place on 8th January, 1908, and there was one child. Later on in the same year respondent left his home, merely saying he had to go away. She knew of no reason for his leaving, and had not seen him since. A decree nisi was granted.
(Bunyip Free Press, September 3, 1914, see here)
A divorce of interest
February 1917 - BIRD V. BIRD
George Bird, 62 years, of Garfield, sought divorce from Grace Bird, 62 years, on the ground of desertion. The case for petitioner was that the parties were married on 21st October, 1896, and there were two children. In January, 1909, respondent left Garfield, where they had lived for about eight years, taking the daughter with her. He had seen her twice since, and she stated that she would not return because she found life in the country "too slow." A decree nisi was granted, and the amount of alimony was fixed at the rate of 15/ a week.
(
The Age, February 10, 1917, see
here)
July 1919 - The Argus newspaper headed their report - Soldiers' Divorce Suits. Another crop of cases in which soldiers sought divorce from wives who had been unfaithful during their absence on active service was heard before Mr Justice Hood in the Supreme Court yesterday.
ROBB V. ROBB
Alexander Thomas Robb, 32, farm labourer, living at Colac, sought the dissolution of his marriage with Susan Robb, 32, on the grounds of misconduct with Charles Beasley, of Koo-wee-rup, who was joined as co-respondent. The parties were married in July 1904, and there are five children. In October, 1916, petitioner left for the war, leaving his wife £3 a week. He was away for two years and three months and on his return he found his wife in bed at Loch, in Gippsland, with a newly-born child, of which she admitted Beasley was the father. Mr. Justice Hood said that the co-respondent had not been properly identified by the witnesses. The case could be adjourned, to obtain further evidence, or another course could be adopted. Petitioner stated that he was willing to leave Beasley out of the suit rather than than it be adjourned. Mr. Justice Hood thereupon granted a decree nisi. Mr R.F. Hayes (instructed by Messrs. Glover and Ormond, agent for C.W. St. J. Clarke, of Colac) appeared in support of the petition.
(The Argus, July 17, 1919, see
here)
April 1920 - NICHOLS V. NICHOLS
Mr Justice Cussen to-day concluded the hearing of a petition by Violet Victoria Nichols, 35, of Point Nepean road, Elsterwick, for a dissolution of her marriage with William Nichols, 38, asphalter, on the grounds of misconduct. Of the marriage, which took place in 1908, there are two children. Petitioner said that in July, 1917, respondent bought a farm at Garfield, where it was arranged she should live until he joined her after selling his asphalting business. He visited her once a month, and when she spoke to him about delay in selling the business he said certain debts had first to be settled. She remained on the farm until June, 1919, when she received a letter signed “A Charwoman, Brighton," stating that misconduct had occurred between respondent and a young woman named Doris Edwards, who had given birth to a child. A brother of the girl told her that respondent had for 12 months, under the name of “Bill Johnson" paid attentions to his sister, intending to marry her, and take her to a farm at Bunyip. He had taken the girl away on the understanding that he would get her a situation, but subsequently lived with her. Respondent subsequently admitted to petitioner that he had been “carrying on" for 12 months before he sent, her to Garfield. For the sake of the children, she forgave him, but one night he came home late, and when she accused him of having been with the woman again. He rushed at her, and almost choked her. A decree nisi was granted, and petitioner was given custody of the children, and allowed 25/ a week for the maintenance, on condition that she did not claim alimony for herself.
(
Ballarat Star, April 22, 1920 see
here)
March 1921 - TAYLOR V. TAYLOR
Alleging desertion, Richard Thomas Taylor, of Perth street, Prahran, in the employ of the Railways Department as a carriage builder, asked for a dissolution of his marriage with Annie Isabel Taylor. It was alleged that Mrs. Taylor had sold the house in which the parties had lived, kept the proceeds, and went to live with her daughter at Yannathan. In reply to the Chief Justice, Mrs. Taylor said that the house had been bought in her name, and that it was her husband's wish that he should leave him. The petition was dismissed. Thus, in spite of the fact that Richard wanted a divorce and Annie was happy to leave him, the Judge dismissed his petition for a divorce.
(
Prahran Telegraph, March 12, 1921, see
here)
February 1922 - HULSE V. HULSE
Before Mr. Justice Macfarlan yesterday, Mary Hulse, aged 42 years, was granted a dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Ernest Hulse, 45 years of age, farmer, of Bunyip, on the grounds of desertion and repeated acts of misconduct with Wilhelmina Ford, of Bunyip. The petitioner was allowed 15/ a week alimony and costs.
(
The Argus, September 17, 1922, see
here)
September 1923 - ROGERS V. ROGERS
William Henry Rogers, aged 53 years, of Nar-nar-goon, formerly a constable of police, but now a farmer, petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Alice Ann Maud Rogers, aged 47 years, of Canterbury road, Toorak, on the grounds of desertion. Mrs. Rogers defended the suit, and claimed that she had had just cause for leaving her husband owing to his cruelty. Mr. Justice Macfarlan found that desertion had been proved, and granted a decree nisi. Rogers was ordered to pay his wife's costs. Mr. Hudson appeared for Rogers, and Mr. L. S. Woolf for Mrs. Rogers.
(
The Argus, September 10, 1923, see
here)
April 1925 - CLANEY V. CLANEY
Margaret Winifred Claney, 31 years, of Tennyson-street, Sandringham, nurse, sought divorce from William John Claney, 50 years, of Iona, farmer, on the ground of desertion. Petitioner stated that while
she and her husband were living on a farm she one evening found him in the dairy with the girl who was employed on the farm. The girl had her arms round respondent's neck. The girl left the farm, and some time later respondent sold the farm. She heard afterwards he had met the girl, and that respondent had since admitted the girl was with him. She obtained a maintenance order against respondent. A decree nisi was granted, with costs, and an order was made for permanent alimony at 25/ a week.
(
The Age, April 9, 1925, see
here)
December 1925 - TAPLIN V. TAPLIN
Albert Edward Taplin, 48 years, of Catani, farmer, sought divorce from Sarah Annie Taplin, 52 years, of Yarragon, on the ground of desertion. Petitioner said the marriage took place in Wales, England, in July, 1907. He came to Australia in 1911, and went to the war in 1915. He came back in the following year, and in 1919 went to live at Catani. While there respondent went on a visit to a farm which he had given her at Yarragon, and she refused to return to him. Respondent filed an answer to the petition and gave evidence denying desertion. She said she was forced to leave her husband on account of his cruelty. Her husband had visited her on several occasions and cohabitation had taken place. He had also sent her gifts of various kinds and money. His Honor said he was not satisfied petitioner had proved desertion for the required period, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
(
The Age, December 16, 1925, see
here)
February 1930 - GRIFFITHS V. GRIFFITH
Charles William Griffiths, 33 years, of Raglan-street South Melbourne, motor driver, sought divorce from Doris Clarice Griffiths, 27 years, of Tynong, on the ground of misconduct. Hilary Charles Phillips, of Page-street, Middle Park, taxi driver, was joined as co-respondent. The parties were married on 27th May, 1922, at Melbourne. A decree nisi was granted with costs against co-respondent.
(
The Age, February 8, 1930, see
here)
September 1934 - YOUNG V. YOUNG
On the ground of desertion, Caroline Young, 43 years, Luscombe-street, East Malvern, petitioned for divorce from Herbert Young, 44 years, Cora Lynn, near Garfield. The marriage took place on 16th January, 1912, at Brunswick, and there are four children. A decree nisi was granted. (
The Age, September 4, 1934, see
here)
July 1950 - GLOVER V. GLOVER
Archie Lee Glover, farmer, of Koo-wee-rup, was awarded £450 damages against William Mortensen, farmer labourer, also of Koo-wee-rup, the co-respondent in Glover's divorce suit. Glover sued for a divorce from his wife, Joyce Lillian Glover on the ground of her adultery with Mortensen. He also sought £1,000 damages from Mortensen and asked for custody of the three children of the marriage. The suit was undefended. Mr. Justice Coppel granted Glover a decree nisi and ordered that Mortensen pay £450 damages into Court within 14 days. He reserved his decision on the question of custody of the three children. Mr. W. Fazio (instructed by John P. Rhoden) appeared for Archie Lee Glover.
(
The Age, July 22, 1950 see
here)
