January 29, 1963 (25th Parliament, 1st Session)


Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

I am prevented by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, from replying to that interesting question. I had a worth while, interesting argument to make, one which represents my views about the members of the other place and whether they study anything with assiduity or not. In any event, Mr. Zchilter, a grocer, gives evidence by recognizing and identifying a picture of the respondent. He gives his name. Then follows a series of questions and answers:
Q. Who is this man? A. Ignaz.
Q. Ignaz who? A. Ignaz Bagry.
Q. Where does he live? A. Next door to us, upstairs, I don't know the house number.
Q. How long has he been living there, to your knowledge?
A. Oh, six, seven years.
Q. Do you know his trade or occupation. A. A tailor.
Q. Do you know whether he is married or not?
A. Well, at that time he was supposed to be married.
Q. Do you know the person? Do you see her in this room?
A. This woman here.
Those questions were asked by Mr. Masse. Now the chairman asks a few questions.
Q. You are pointing to the corespondent. It is not the petitioner. A. I never seen her (indicating the petitioner).
Q. You never saw the petitioner before? A. No.
So here we find the grocer, who has lived next door to this couple, indicating that they have been together as man and wife for six or seven years. He had some inkling that they were not married as may be gathered from
Divorce Bills
his answer to the question when he said "supposed to be married". Mr. Masse asks:
Q. Have you seen Mr. Bagry and the woman that you thought was his wife many times during, those seven years? A. All the time.
Witness again indicates that here is a so-called common law marital ielationship which has existed for a period of seven years. Perhaps that would be sufficient to meet the test of the other place, which is adultery, because adultery as far as this case and others are concerned is solely an occasion of sexual intercourse having taken place. Proof of the act itself is seldom given. What is required is just a set of circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to assume that such an act had taken place. Presumably the senators had come to the conclusion in their own minds after a couple had lived together for seven years representing themselves as man and wife the test of adultery had been met. However, they went further.
Before I pursue the matter, because now the evidence goes into the question of children being involved, I wonder if I might have your indulgence to count the house, Mr. Chairman, in order to decide whether there is a quorum to allow us to proceed.

Full View