I bow to your wishes, though I really do not know what I am withdrawing. But if there was any reflection detrimental to any person I withdraw it.
The gentleman in question in this case, as is indicated in the evidence before the Senate committee, is a person of an artistic type. That, of course, does not mean anything bad. But the evidence also says he drank too much, that he did not hold a job, that he did not make any money, that he seldom worked and that when he did he supplemented the little he earned by money he got from his wife and other women. Every lawyer knows that consideration is given to the character and moral standing of people who appear in these cases. Being in possession of this information, the committee, both in this house and in the other place, was faced with an affidavit from this gentleman,
a contestation. It is signed by a well-known lawyer in Ottawa and it says:
Take notice that the respondent Jan Paul Han-kowski desires to oppose the granting of the divorce prayed for by the petitioner herein. The respondent resides at 144 East-40th Street, Room 201, New York City, State of New York, one of the United States of America.
The statement goes on to give the addresses at which the respondent can be reached in Ottawa and through his barrister. Then it continues:
The respondent Jan Paul Hankowski states that he has never been domiciled in Canada and that moreover the petitioner is not domiciled in Canada.
The respondent further denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the petition.
What evidence do we have to show that this may have been a fact?
Subtopic: MADELEINE-FRANC OISE HANKOWSKI