The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-12-14
WAS IN HONOL ULU
Search Of a Woman in a "DiSap-
pGaTanG1" Case.
A NOTE SENT FROM HERE
A Chief Justice Hears Divorce
Petltion-A School Master Pros
eCuteS the Libel.

AUCKLAND, y. Z.-lneXplicdb bic cir
cumstances connected with the some
what mysterious disappearance of a
wife were related at length before the
Chief Justice in the Melbourne Di-
vorce Court on November 1. In De-
cember, 1894, when his school had
broken up for the Christmas vaca-
ton, Henry Herbert Lee, assistant
master at the Grammar School, Too
woomba, Queensland, left for Mel
bourne with his little daughter to join
his wife, who had preceded him thither
with two other children ON November
9. Mrs. Lee stayed for time with her
mother at Morrisons, near Meredith,
and wrote an affectiOnate letter TO her
husband, in which she fondly men,
toned the children, and wrote in terms
Of pleasing anticipation relative to his
joining her. When Mr.. Lee arrived in
Melbourne, however, he was told that
his wife had taken the children to
Sydney, with the expressed intention
of meeting him, and had left a letter
for him. In this letter his wife said
that she could not live with him as
yet" but might, if he liked, be able
to at some time" She also advised
him not to try and find her, as his eff
forts would be unavailing. and wound
up by asking him to pay t22 s, which
she owed. The surprised husband made
various efforts to find her, but without
avail, and subsequently received an
anonymous note from Honolulu. in
which the writer said that his family
were we'll, and that 'fhis wife was
keeping herself nice" Advertisements
which had been inserted in the Homo
lulu papers had failed to lead to the
discovery of the woman's whereabouts.
Petitioner Henry Herbert Lee said
he was married to his wife at FitZroy
ON October 3, 1885, by a Congregational
minister, and had always lived happily
with her They had parted on the very
best of terms.
The Chief Justice questioned the wit
ness very closely as to whether there
was any reason why his wife should
leave him. He denied that there was.
He had comfortable home of his own.
was receiving a salary at the time of
1920 a year, and had not the slightest
suspicion that his wife had been tickle
in her affections. He was of sober
habits and they had been "more than
friendly" The ground of his applica-
ton for divorce was desertion.
Elizabeth Jane Burt, sister of re-
spondent, said the latter had never
of her husbands conduct,
and that to her the reason for her sis
ter leaving him was inexplicable.
The Chief Justice said that this was
a very remarkable case. 1t. was eX-
ceedingly difficult to discover what the
reason for the respondents strange
might be. The conse- |
ouences of it We're far beyond what at |
tended woman's usual caprices. How
ever. it was quite clear that she had
deserted her husband from December,
1894, and had continued to desert him.
1t appeared that petitioners duty as
husband had been uniformly we'll dis
charged. and that he had given her no
cause nor even excuse, for deSeruon. |
On the other hand. ne appeared to be
a young man Of cultivation. pursuing
his business, and supporting his wife
and family Petitioner did not appear
to be of such habits as to make him
distasteful to her, and he had evident
ly done his best to clear up the mystery
his wife's disappearance.
He would grant the decree nisi.
Mr. Potts. who appeared to support
the petition. asked that an order should
be made granting petitioner the GUS
tody of the children. It might not be
of much use at present, regarding two
of the children. but granting the appli-
cation at present might be the means
of saving an appeal to the Court in
future.
The Chief Justice observed that the
petitioner certainly had the legal right
to the children, and granted the appli
cation