It was not my intention to go into the merits of this case until the Bill was in committee, but after hearing the statements of the ihon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), I feel it my duty to this House to give them some information. Having had the privilege of. healing the evidence, seeing the petitioner and the respondent, and ib'earing the matter thoroughly threshed out in the Private Bills Committee, I could come to no other
conclusion than that the petitioner was entitled to a Bill of divorce, To put the case as briefly as possible, this couple were married and lived together, penhaps not under the happiest conditions, for ten years. At the end of ten years they separated. The point I wanted to make was that the father and the mother of the respondent had lived in their home for a certain length of time. When the mother heard that they had separated, she went to the home to take care of it. That led me to believe that the petitioner could not be the had man that the hon. member for North Perth tries to make him out. The respondent herself admits, according to the evidence, that there was a time when she threw a plate of hot porridge over his head.
Topic: GORDON DIVORCE BILL NOT REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE.