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

LIB

Charles Adolphe Stein

Liberal

Mr. STEIN:

I have not the names of those judges here; I have only the name of the judge of first instance, Mr. Justice Duclos. While the case was pending before the Court of Review, the grandmother of the little girl, Mr. de Martigny's mother, filed a claim of intervention seeking the custody of the child for herself, and she submitted the same reasons as those which had been adduced already by her son against Mrs. de Martigny. She claimed that neither her son nor Mrs. de Martigny should retain the custody of the child. Having heard the evidence in that intervention, Mr. Justice Coderre, as Mr. Justice Duclos had done, came to the conclusion that the intervening party, the grandmother, had not proven her allegations against Mrs. de Martigny, and the intervention was dismissed. The witnesses who were heard before the Superior Court of Montreal on behalf of the husband were the very same witnesses who gave testimony before the Divorce Committee to support his claim. In her testimony, Mrs. de Martigny very positively denied all the charges of adultery brought against her by her husband and by her mother-in-law, and also emphatically denied the alleged admissions which her husband stated before the Divorce Committee she had made to him.
Thi;, Mr. Chairman, is a resume of what happened before the courts in Montreal. Now, if I may be allowed to proceed, I will refer to the evidence that was adduced by

the husband, Mr. de Martigny, before the Divorce Committee of the Senate; and with all due respect to the hon. senators who passed upon the case, as well as tc the members of this House who do not share my views, I shall endeavour to show that there is absolutely no evidence in this case to justify this committee in adopting the conclusions that have been reached by the Divorce Committee of the Senate. When Mr. De Martigny was asked before the Senate what was the cause of the separation between himself and his wife, he replied that it was owing to incompata-tility, and therefore they separated on September 22, 1912. I now quote from the testimony given:
Q. At that time had you any reason to suspect your wife of immoral conduct?
A. No, Sir.
Q. You separated on the 22nd September, 1912, and where did your wile go?
He replied that she took an apartment
on Union avenue, and he said:
For the first year I didn't follow her very much.
Well, it is easy to see immediately that the husband did not care much what his wife was doing. They separated on account of incompatability, and he says for the first year he did not follow her much-he did not care what she was doing, but that he had no reason at that date to suspect her of immoral conduct. He further says that he stayed in Montreal until August, 1913, and that after August 26, he was very much depressed, and he left for California. He states further that when he returned in May, 1914, his wife telephoned to him to secure an interview with him. He replied that he did not care to have any interview whatever with her. He states then that he had heard gossip about his wife, but he does not give the source of this gossip-he does not give any details whatever. It puzzles me why the Senators who sat on the Divorce Committee should have been satisfied with such slim evidence. He merely said that he heard gossip about her, and he did not care to have anything to do with his wife. Furthermore he states that after she had telephoned to him several times he decided to grant her an interview, and then appears the statement he makes as to the admission of his wife to him of her immoral conduct. He says this:
Well she told me that she was living with a man.
Q. What was his name?-A. Mr. V. S.
Stie was his mistress, and
shj Icved him, and she was living with him.

I was passing over several details that are not necessary, I think, to quote.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Full View