May 30, 1921 (13th Parliament, 5th Session)


Charles Adolphe Stein



I am sorry to have to
delay the committee again in resuming the remarks I had begun on this Bill a few days ago. When I rose to speak the other day only one hour was allotted for Private Bills, and that time expired a few minutes after I had risen. On that occasion I was about to reply to some of the statements of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) who referred to certain cases that had been heard before the courts of the district of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, and, I think in goad faith, the hon. gentleman said some things that were not correct. When I first spoke on this subject, I had not available the exact dates in reference to these cases, but I have them now, and will take the liberty of giving this information to the committee.
The first case that Came before the courts in Montreal between these parties was heard on November 12, 1912, when a judgment was rendered, granting to Mrs. de Martigny, under our provincial laws, separation as to bed and board, with alimony of $100 per month. The dispute between the parties remained in abeyance until 19'19, when Mrs. de Martigny brought before the court another petition, this time for an increase in alimony. Her husband con-

tested the petition and, in addition, claimed the custody of the infant child, who was then nine years old-the custody of the child had been left with the mother up to that date. The husband also petitioned the court for relief from the obligation of paying the allowance of $100 a month to his wife. Evidence was adduced by both parties before the Superior Court in Montreal, and at the close of the case Mr. Justice Duclos delivered two judgments on April 23, 1919. By these judgments the monthly allowance was increased, and the counterpetitions of the husband were rejected on the ground of lack of evidence. It was stated in the judgment that it was in the interest of the child that she should remain in the mother's custody, because the father was openly living with another woman. The husband filed an appeal against these judgments, which was heard by the Court of Review, composed of three judges.
An non. MEMBER: Who were the

Full View