Hamilton v Hamilton
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 45. |
| Date | 17 July 1953 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
Lord Guthrie.
Husband and WifeDivorceDesertionConfession of adultery by pursuer to defenderNo evidence of adultery except pursuer's confessionWhether defender justified in refusing to adhere.
In an undefended action of divorce at the instance of a wife on the ground of her husband's desertion it was established that the reason for the defender's refusal to adhere was the pursuer's confession to him, which he believed, that she had committed adultery. The pursuer deponed that her confession was untrue, but her evidence on this point was rejected by the Lord Ordinary. There was no evidence of her adultery except her confession.
Held by the Lord Ordinary (Guthrie) that the defender, although unable to prove the pursuer's adultery, was justified by her confession in refusing to adhere to her; and decree refused.
Mrs Mary Miller Swanson or M'Cormick or Hamilton brought an action of divorce on the ground of desertion against her husband, John Donaldson Hamilton. The action was undefended.
The following narrative of the facts established at the proof is taken from the opinion of the Lord Ordinary (Guthrie):"The parties were married on 21st September 1928 and cohabited until about September 1943. In 1941 the pursuer and the two children of the marriage went from their home in Glasgow to live at Dunoon in order to escape the danger of enemy attacks. The defender visited them at week-ends. In September 1943 the defender was injured at his work and did not give the pursuer money for the support of his family while he was off work. After four weeks the pursuer wrote him a letter, in which she stated that she had met someone with whom she would be much happier and that she was taking the children with her. The defender went to Dunoon after receiving that letter, and told the pursuer that he intended to sell the furniture and go to London. The pursuer told him that he could do as he liked with the furniture. They arranged to meet at the family home at 76 Grove Street, Glasgow, but the pursuer did not keep the appointment. The defender paid several visits to Dunoon and the parties spent a night together on 30th October 1943. It was found in fact in an action of adherence and aliment in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow in 1944 that this followed upon a retraction by the pursuer of her statement that she was attached to another man. Shortly afterwards the pursuer sent a telegram to the defender, stating: Left Dunoon. Not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v Richardson
...persons to ordain the offended spouse to adhere to the offender. Hastings v. HastingsUNK, 1941 S. L. T. 323,Hamilton v. Hamilton, 1953 S. C. 383, andThomas v. Thomas, 1947 S.C. (H.L.) 45, [19471 A.C. 484, commented William Thomas Richardson brought an action of divorce against his wife, Mrs......
-
Donnelly v Donnelly
...Benholme at p. 777. 12 Maclaren, Court of Session Practice, p. 79, 80. 1 Milne v. MilneUNK, 8 S. L. T. 375. 2 Hamilton v. HamiltonSC, 1953 S. C. 383, Lord Guthrie at p. 1 (1561) M. 5877. 2 Milne v. MilneUNK, (1901) 8 S. L. T. 375. 3 Nisbet v. NisbetUNK, (1896) 4 S. L. T. 142. 4 7 Edw. VII, ......
-
Jack v Jack
...1941 S. L. T. 323;Pollock v. Pollock, 29th March 1946, unreported;Borland v. BorlandSC, 1947 S. C. 432; Hamilton v. HamiltonSC, 1953 S. C. 383; Richardson v. RichardsonSC, 1956 S. C. 4 Fraser, Husband and Wife, (2nd ed.) vol. i, p. 840. 1 1941 S. L. T. 323. 2 1953 S. C. 383. 3 Reference was......
-
McMillan v McMillan
...p. 410, Lord Patrick at p. 419. 4 Beer v. BeerELR, [1948] P. 10. 1 Richardson v. RichardsonSC, 1956 S. C. 394. 2 Hamilton v. HamiltonSC, 1953 S. C. 383. 3 Glenister v. GlenisterELR, [1945] P. 30, Lord Merriman at p. 1 1939 S. C. 187. 1 1956 S. C. 394. 2 [1945] P. 30. 1 1953 S. C. 383. 2 195......