15, Judge G. W. King gave his considered judgment in the divorce ease Cecile Laval Toeg v. David Lionel Toeg, hearing of which was concluded on July His Lordship said that in.view of the circumstances he could not ex: ereise the discretion of the, court in favour of the petitioner, against whom adultery hed also been proved. He refused a decree nisi Notice of, appeal was given by Mr. Tycho Wing, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. M. Preston represented the respondent.
Tu giving judgment, his Lordship "This is a suit by petitioner for dissolution of her marriage, which took place on June 1, 1923, in the Registrar's office, at Hongkong, and of which marriage there was issue, tone son born at San Francisco in March, 1925.
"The grounds for asking for the dissolution are acts of adultery committed by the respondent at Shanghai in May of this year.
"The petitioner before succeeding in her petition must satisfy the court as to the domicile of her husband and as to the acts of adultery alleged. Further, as she states in her petition that' she herself has been guilty of sexual "intercourse with a man other than her husband, must show such a state of, affairs as will induce the court to exercise its discretion in granting er petition.
'"Beforedealing with these matters it is desirable to. say some-with respect to the parties in this suit, "The respondent, the hut ud, Was, born in Shanghai and in this Consulate General as British protected person; he is not a British subject.
"The. petitioner, the wife,.was born in Missouri, United States of America, and as her husband not being a British subject equid not by marriage confer British nationality fon her, she, it would seem likely, is stil an American citizen.
"The marriage between these two people would appear, except for the first two years, never to have been a happy one, and they separated in 1026, after that living together only for brief periods. In 1927 the petitioner obtained a divorce in the Second Judicial Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe. All T need say about this divorce is that however binding it is fon the petitioner it does not effect the position of the respondent in respect of his marriage at Hongkong in 1923.
"To turn now to the matters on which the petitioner must satisfy the court, namely, domicile of the respondent and the alleged acts of adultery by him, am satisfied from the evidence of the respondent that he is domieilced in China, and he would apparent ly seem always to have been 10 domiciled.
"The petition set out various acts of adultery, but evidence was only offered on two acts on the nights of May 910 and May 12-13 at 187 Bubbling Well Road, Shanghai, fiat No. oes on to say that certain bro Principles could be gathered from Zases which were cited. The judg tment then deals with many decided tasses and lays down that on & 32. View of these certain principles peared: "The interest of the com= Prunity at large in maintaining the Sanction of honest matrimony was governing consideration; a strong Sffirmative ease was necessary fore a judge was justified under the statutes in. negativing their conchs tional prohibition; it was manif contrary to law that a judicial digs Cretion in favour of a litigant guilty,
question should be exercised mince inthe "mate, See hoe would probely neal age immorality, and if it was likely. to do's0 that was an argument against leniency."
"How, taking these principles, standard, how does the conduct of the petitioner entitle her to the exercise of the discretion of the court in her favour?
T have said, this marriage does not seem to have been a happy, tone except for the first two yours, would add that the marriage tie seems to have been treated lights ly by both husband and wife, The letter of August 22, 1029, already referred to is not pleasant reading. The reason given for the adultery. of the wife at Harbin seems to be {nadequate; she was not forced this line of conduct by any one and appears to have been a willing, agent, I cannot see how "the Inter= tst of the community in maintain {ng the sanction of honest matris many is served by acceding to hor petition, nor do T consider a strong Afizmative ease has been made out Finally, I consider in this case that to exercise a discretion in favour of the petitioner would probably. en=' courage immorality,' in that were seceded to it would not deter other wives desirous of divorcing their husband from. behaving in, similar manner to the way in which has, behaved. interests of the child of the marriage, It is ald Gown in Wilson v. Wilson, 1920, Probate p. 20, that it is material for consideration' how the interests children are affected by the petit Teannet see how the position of this child would be improved by grant ing. a decree nisi.
"do not see my way to exercise a discretion inher favour and I rest refuse a deere 'A Dishonoured. Cheque In HM, Supreme Court on July 17, Judge G.W. King gave judgment inthe case in which Nr. Fung Chung-pat sued the Bank of Canton for the sum of $1,450-and Tls. 500 damages. 'The amount claimed by, plaintiff' was the sum of a cheque Which was dishonoured owing to the Shortage of funds incidental upon the cashing of a cheque which plaintiff alleged was a forgery, and for which fan employee of his' recently stated to the Shanghai Special District Court to 11 months? imprisonment. The damages were claimed on account fof the dishonour caused to plaintiff through his cheque not being hone oured.
it. K, E, Newman appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Tycho Wing for defendant.
Judge King, in his judgment Luchich ws to these acts, but it was not supported by the Chinese house boy employed in the flat. However, any Goubts I might have entertained are dispelled by the letter of the re-ponent to the petitioner and dated August 22, 1929. I am satisfied that the respondent has committed adult tery.
"It remains ther to determine the question whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner, she having committed adultery herself.
"The whole question of the exercise of this discretion has recently deen dealt with by Lord Merrivale, the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division in a considered judgment in the suit Apted re) in "The Times" newspaper Apted & Bliss. This judgment is
of May 20, and after stating that it was not.possible to formulate and Vimit with precision the grounds-on which discretion was to be exercised, The plaintiff claims the sum of $1,450 in respect of a cheque dated May 23, 1980, drawn by him on the defendant's bank in favour of Wing On Bank or bearer, payment of which was refused by the. defend ant's bank, and the sum of Tls. 500 damages in consequence of such refusal, The bank, in its defence, claims that it had not funds of plaintiff in its hands to the amount of $1,450 and further he was not the holder of the cheque in question, Jat, the time of action brought.
'The above is the form in which the action was brought in this Court put the real issue between the parties is whether a, cheque. dated [March 11, 1990, for'$i,250 to bearer purporting to' be drawn by the plaintiff on the bank is a genuine cheque or not. The issue falls der two heads:—(1) Is the signature on this cheque the signature of the. plaintiff or is it a forgery? (2). Was' there negligence on the part of they plaintiff, assum-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.