Ada Mary Peisley [34582]

Ada married James Bell Gibbons [34341] [MRIN: 12997], son of Seymour Bell Gibbons [34583] and Elizabeth Barton [34584], in 1914 in Dubbo District, New South Wales, Australia. The marriage ended in divorce on 1940 Dec 5. (James Bell Gibbons [34341] was born before 1926, died before 1951 Oct 1 in Newcastle District, New South Wales, Australia and was buried on 1951 Oct 2 in Sandgate, Northumberland County, New South Wales, Australia.)

  Noted events in their marriage were:

• Registration: Marriage, 1914, Dubbo District, New South Wales, Australia. ¹ 15124/1914
GIBBONS, JAMES B
PEISLEY, ADA M
DUBBO

• Court Notice, 1940 Nov 26. ² IN DIVORCE. (1940, November 26). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 5. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article17717361>

IN DIVORCE.
(Before Mr. Justice Halse Rogers.)
GIBBONS v GIBBONS
James Bell Gibbons, a sergeant oí police, stationed at Greta, petitioned for a divoice from Ada Mary Gibbons for- merly Peisley on the ground of con- structive desertion. The defendant de- nies the allegation of desertion.
The parties were married on October 3, 1914, according to Church of England rites. There were four children, only one being under the age of 16 years. This child is in the care of the respon-dent.
Gibbons in evidence said his wife had accused him of committing adultery with married women at Nowra, Dubbo, and Campsie, and with a single woman at Nowra. He denied the allegations. He left his home on numerous occasions be-cause of the accusations made against him by his wife, and her assults on him and threats. He finally left home, in 1936.
"I have been in the police force for 27 years, and during that time I have never had a woman through my hands as bad
as my wife. I would not say that she has not a redeeming feature, but she is a very jealous woman", said the peti- tioner in reply to Mr. Penny. "She is an excellent cook and a good mother to the children."
The case is part heard.
Mr. R. M. Stonham (Messrs. Hobbs and Stonham) for the petitioner; Mr. Clifton R. Penny for the respondent.

• Court Notice, 1940 Nov 27. ² IN DIVORCE. (1940, November 27). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 6. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article17716043>

IN DIVORCE.
(Before Mr. Justice Halse Rogers.)
GIBBONS V GIBBONS.
The hearing was continued of the peti-tion of James Bell Gibbons, a sergeant of police, for divorce from Ada Mary Gib- bons (formerly Peisley) on the ground of desertion.
Gibbons on the previous day had given evidence of having on numerous occasions been assulted and threatened by his wife, Yesterday, answering questions by her solicitor (Mr. C. R. Penney), Mrs Gibbons denied the statements made by the petitioner.
Mr. Penney: It is said that you kept your husband out of the house for two nights-that you sat on the steps with a A knife in your hand?
Mis Gibbons: There is no truth what-ever in it.
Did you ever threaten his life or safety? -No.
Did you eyer use obscene language?- Never. But I reacll him doing so.
Did you do any s.p. betting?-My hus-band would get me to go and ask a man whether Trautwein had given any infor- mation about horses. If he had my hus-band would bet. I would myself have a shilling each way.
Mrs. Gibbons had not concluded her evidence at the adjournment.

• Court Notice, 1940 Nov 28. ² IN DIVORCE. (1940, November 28). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 3. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article17716373>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before Mr Justice Bonney.)
GIBBONS V GIBBONS
In the suit of James Bell Gibbons v Ada Mary Gibbons decision was reserved until to-morrow

• Court Notice, 1940 Dec 5. ² DIVORCE COURT. (1940, December 5). The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926-1954), p. 5. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2545034>
DIVORCE COURT
Police Sergeant Wins Claim
SYDNEY, Wednesday.
Granting a decree nisi to James Bell Gibbons, police sergeant, Justice Halse Rogers in the Divorce Court, to-day said that there had been considerable conflict of testimony but he accepted without the slightest hesitation the evidence of Gibbons as substantially true.
Gibbons sought, a divorce from Ada Mary Gibbons on the grounds of con-structive desertion. Mrs. Gibbons de-fended the suit.

• Court Notice, 1940 Dec 5. ² IN DIVORCE. (1940, December 5). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 3. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article17703483>

GIBBONS V GIBBONS
Judgment was given in the suit of James Bell Gibbons, a Seargent of Police sta- tioned at Greta, who sought divorce on the ground of constructive desertion from Ada Mary Gibbons, to whom he was mar-ried in 1914. The petitioners case was that he had been driven from the matri-monial home by his wife's vindictiveness, repeated assaults and abuse.
In the course of judgment his Honor said that he accepted the evidence of Gibbons as being true. Mrs Gibbons on her own admission was a vindictive and violently jealous woman. No reliance could be placed on her evidence. In fits of uncontrollable temper she frequently assaulted her husband and threatened his life, on occasions excluded him from their home, used violent abusive and offensive language towards him and about him, and made false charges against him to his superior officers .All this the peti-ioner had said made life impossible, but apparently he would not have ultimately left the respondent but for the repetition by her of charges of immorality.
On the facts, said his Honor, there could be no doubt that the petitioner was justified in withdrawing from cohabita- tion. In a case of constructive desertion however, such a finding did not conclude the matter.
According to the evidence the petitioner was a man of equable temperament, but easily roused, and the respondent must have known when he had been goaded to give her a warning that he meant it. She should have known that the natural con-sequences of repetition of her offences would be his withdrawal. Before that intimation was given he (his Honor) was of opinion that respondents conduct however gross would not have been suffi-cient foundation for an imputation against her that she was really coercing her hus-band to withdraw. But the situation was different after he had given her warning, and it should have been taken by her in all seriousness.
A decree nisi was granted. Respondent to have custody of the youngest child on undertaking to afford petitioner access.
Mr. E. M. Stonham (Messrs. Hobbs and Stonham) for petitioner: Mr. Clifton R. Penny for respondent.