34
["A Melbourne Divorce", The Sydney Morning Herald, Friday 22 November 1912, page 10]
A MELBOURNE DIVORCE.
REMARKABLE POSITION.
IS THE PETITIONER ALIVE?
MELBOURNE, Thursday.
A remarkable position has arisen in connection with the divorce suit Davis v Davis (Hattrick co-respondent), owing to the apparent fact that between the time that petitioner obtained the decree nisi and the data on which the decree was made absolute he was drowned at sea. Petitioner, Abraham Davis, commercial traveller, last year took action to obtain a divorce from Sarah Davis on the ground of misconduct between her and J. M. Hattrick. On December 18 Mr. Justice A'Beckett granted a decree nisi, which was made absolute on April 10 last. In the meantime, about March 30 last, the steamship Koombana, on which it is supposed Davis was a passenger, went down, with all hands, off the north-west coast of Western Australia.
Probate has been granted on the draft of the will of Davis in Western Australia, the date of death being stated as on or about March 20 last. Now the matter of the divorce is to come before the courts again on an application by the respondent to have the decree dissolving her marriage with petitioner set aside, on the ground that he was dead at the time it was made absolute.
The matter came before Mr. Justice Cussen in the Practice Court when Mr. McFarlane appeared to support the application, and Mr. Hogan to oppose.
Mr. Macfarlane said he appeared on the summons.
Mr. Hogan: I appear for the petitioner.
Mr. Macfarlane: We say there is no petitioner.
Mr. Hogan: I appear for the representatives of the petitioner, and ask for an adjournment. We do not know where he is. He may not be dead. If so, I appear for his executors.
Mr. Justice Cussen held that Hogan appeared for the executors of Davis, and adjourned the matter till Thursday.