TUCKERMAN Vs TUCKERMAN

We this is on of the sadest tales in my family tree. The evil Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman took his wife (Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Whitman) to divorce court to extort money out her lover, He asked for £5,000 and got £2,000. Here are the news paper extracts of the case. About 2 years after the case, their son died at age 10 and no cause of death listed. I wonder if he died of a broken heart.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE, 25 Aug 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, August 25). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 5. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16820496>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge In Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, and Juries.)
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge In Divorce, Mr. Justice
Owen, and Juries.)
TUCKERMAN V TUCKERMAN.
Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman petitioned for a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman), on the ground of her adultery with Herbert Alex- ander William Wallace Hogg, who was joined as co-respondent, and from whom petitioner claimed damages. The marriage tooke place on January 25, 1922, at Sydney, Chalmer’s Presbyterian Church.
Respondent denied the adultery alleged in the petition, and in her answer petitioned for a divorce on the grounds of her husband’s adultery with Claire Henkes and cruelty. Claire Henkes intervened and denied the adultery alleged.
An unusual position arose in this case on account of the fact that the Act makes no provision for an intervener striking a jury. His Honor said the Act called her a respondent. At his Honor’s suggestion counsel agreed to allow the intervener to strike two jurymen on the list.
The jury was empanelled and the hearing adjourned to to-day.
Mr. Brian Clancy (instructed by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson, and Co.) appeared for the petitioner; Mr. P. S. Boyce, K.C., and Mr. H. G. Edwards (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent; Mr. R. Windeyer, K.C., and Mr. S. V. Toose (In- structed by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jen- nings) for the co-respondent; and Mr. G. R. W. McDonald (Instructed by Messrs. F. Cur tlss and Son) for the intervener.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 26 Aug 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, August 26). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 8. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16830129>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge In Divorce, Mr Justice Owen, and a jury)
TUCKERMAN v TUCKERMAN
The taking of evidence was commenced yes-terday in the suit in which Rodney William Samuel Tuckcrman petitioned for a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman) on the ground of adultery with Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg, who was joined as co-respondent, and from whom petitioner claimed £5000 damages. The wife denied the alleged misconduct and charged her husband with cruelty and with adultery with Claire Henkes, who denied the allegation and intervened to defend the case. The co-respondent also denied the alleged misconduct.
The main points of petitioner’s case were that the co-respondent was branch manager of the Bank of New South Wales, and peti-tioner was an officer in the Epping branch, where co-respondent was relieving manager in 1929. Petitioner and Hogg become friendly, and in January Hogg made his first visit to petitioner’s home at Epping, where he soon became a frequent guest. Week-end motor jaunts were organised, and on such occasions Mrs Tuckerman had charge of the seating accommodation in the cars. She invariably arranged matters so that she had the front seat in Hogg’s car, while her husband was placed in one of the other cars. At the end of last year petitioner saw his wife and Hogg drivlng at night in the latter’s car, and subsequent arguments with his wife resulted in her leaving the home and taking up her residence at King’s Lynn Flats, North Sydney, in January last. Petitioner had the flats watched and saw the co-respondent leaving them in the early hours of the morning
The suit is part heard.
Mr Brian Clancy (Instructed by Messrs Perkins Stevenson, and Co ) appeared for the petitioner Mr r S Boyce, K C , and Mr H G Edwards (instructed by Messrs Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent, Mr R Windeyer, K C, and Mr S V. Toóse (in Btiucted by Messrs Mervyn Finlay and Jen- nings) for the co-respondent, and Mr G R W McDonald (instuicted by Messrs F Curtlss and Son) for the intenener.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 27 Aug 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, August 27). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 6. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16816624>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen.)
TUCKERMAN V TUCKERMAN
The hearing was resumed of the suit in which Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman, bank clerk, is seeking a dissolution of his marriage with Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman), on the ground of her adultery with Herbert Alex- ander William Wallace Hogg, bank manager, and Mrs Tuckeiman is asking for a divorce on two grounds, her husband’s adultery with Claire Henkes, who has intervened, and cruelty. Tuckerman is claiming £5000 damages from the co-respondent. Petitioner has been in the witness-box for two days, the greater part of which was taken up in cross examination by two King’s Counsel, Messrs Boyce and Windeyer.
Cross-examined by Mr Boyce, K C , Tucker- man said he went on a motor trip to Brisbane with his wife and the co-respondent. While in Brisbane he had quarrels with his wife, but did not threaten to commit suicide. He denied having threatened to cut his wife’s face so that no man would ever look at her again nor did he pull her nose in the presence of a number of people at Taree on the home- ward journey. He did not have any quarrel with his wife over Miss Henkes until Novem-ber 8, 1930.
Mr Boyce: Did you say to your wife on one occasion, “Miss Henkes is a lovely girl. She is one of the nicest girls I have ever met?”
Witness. I may have said she was a nice girl.
Did you say to your wife, “Claire is a lovely dancer, but she doesn’t put enough soul into it. She ought to put more happiness into it?”-I may have said that
“On November 8,” said petitioner, “I took Miss Henkes to the cricket match and then
to the Capitol Theatre. After that we had supper. I got home about 1 o’clock in the morning, and my wife was very angry. I said, ‘I think far more of Miss Henkes than I do of you the way you are going on ‘ But I did not say ‘If you will get out I will make It worth your while and if you don’t I will make it-hot for you ‘ ‘
Petitioner was still In the witness-box when the Court rose.
Mr Brian Clancy (instructed by Messrs Perkins, Stevenson, and Co ) appeared for the petitioner, Mr F S Boyce, KC, and Mr H G Edwards (instructed by Messrs Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent, Mr R Windeyer KC, and Mr S V Toóse (instructed by Messrs Mervyn Finlay and Jen- nings) for the co-respondent, and Mr G R W McDonald (instructed by Messrs F Curtiss and Son) for the intervener

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 1 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 1). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 4. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16825354>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce. Mr. Justice
Owen, and a jury.)
TUCKERMAN v TUCKERMAN.
Further evidence on behalf of the petitioner was given in the suit by Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman, bank clerk, for a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (for- merly Whltmen) on the ground of her adultery with Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg, from whom petitioner is claiming £5000 dam- ages. Mrs. Tuckerman alleges cruelty and adultery with Claire Henkes against Tucker-man.
Mary Day, single woman, said she had known Hogg for about six years, and the Tuckermans for about 15 months. She had gone for motor trips with the Tuckermans and Hogg on two or three occasions. Mrs. Tuckerman usually sat in the front seat with Hogg. On one occasion, when Mr. Miller, a bank officer, was with them, witness saw Mr. Hogg and Mrs. Tuckerman kissing. At the same time Mr. Miller kissed witness, but she did not kiss him. In November of last year, Hogg told witness he had had afternoon tea with Mrs. Tuckerman, who was upset over her husband making a fuss about her association with him. Witness said, “Why don’t you leave Bryda alone?” He replied, “I love her too much.” Witness told Hogg that that kind of love was all “bunkum,” and that he didn’t know what real love was.
The suit is part heard.
Mr. Brian Clancy (instructed by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson, and Co.), appeared for the petitioner; Mr. F. S. Boyce, K.C., and Mr. H, G. Edwards (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent; Mr. R. Windeyer, K.O., and Mr. S. V. Toose (in- structed by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jen- nings) for the co-respondent; and Mr. G. R. W. McDonald (Instructed by Messrs. F. Curtlss and Son) for the intervener.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 2 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 2). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 7. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16822882>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen,
and a Jury.)
TUCKERMAN V TUCKERMAN.
Minna Lois Hogg, wife of the co-respondent, was called for the petitioner, Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman, in support of his allega-tion that his wife, Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman) had commit- ted adultery with Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg. In her answer Mrs. Tucker- man charged her husband with adultery with Claire Henkes, who intervened.
Mrs. Hogg said that shortly after Christ- mas, 1930, she found a piece of dress material, a piece of paper with writing on it, and a silver chain in her husband’s wallet. Later she found a photograph of Mrs. Tuckerman, with writing on the back, on her husband’s desk.
Petitioner (recalled) said that the writing on the piece of paper was his wife’s, and the piece of dress material waa similar to the material in a dress she had. The photograph was that of his wife, and the writing on the piece of paper was ‘ Darling, I love you.” He gave his wife the silver chain.
In answer to Mr Boyce, K.C., witness de- nied that the words were written by Mrs. Tuckerman one evening in his presence.
Evidence was given by Alfred Watson, Mrs. Pearl Watson, and Archibald Grant Bell, of having seen Hogg and Mrs. Tuckerman driving together in the former’s car at night.
Mrs Tuckerman, the respondent, explained that the photo of herself produced was taken when she was 14 years old, and at school. She never gave it to the co-respondent. The writing on the back was put there because an old schoolgirl friend asked her for the picture but witness forgot to give it to her. The words on the piece of paper were written in the presence of her husband and others.
The suit is part heard
Mr Brian Clancy (instructed by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson, and Co.), appeared for the petitioner, Mr. F. S. Boyce, K.C., and Mr. H. G. Edwards (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent, Mr R. Windeyer, K.C., and Mr S. V. Toose (in- stiucted by Messrs. Melvyn Finlay and Jen- nings) for the co-respondent and Mr. G. R. W. McDonald (instructed by Messrs F. Curtiss and Son) for the intervener.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 3 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 3). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 5. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16809272>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr Justice Owen, and a Jury)
TUCKERMAN v TUCKERMAN
Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman the respondent in the Tuckerman divorce suit was again in the witness box all of yester- day and gave categorical denials of her hus- band’s accusations against her.
Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman is seeking a divorce from his wife on the ground of her adultery with Herbert Alexander Wil- liam Wallace Hogg. In her answer Mrs Tuckerman charges her husband with adultery with Claire Henkes and with cruelty. Tucker-man is claiming £5000 damages from the co- respondent.
In reply to her counsel (Mr Boyce, K.C.), Mrs Tuckerman said her husband went to Epping as relieving accountant in October 1929 and became very friendly with Mr Hogg, who was the manager there. Her husband constantly spoke to her about Mr. Hogg, and impressed upon her that he was a good man to keep in with. When her husband left Epp- ing and returned to the Pitt-street branch Mr. Hogg put in a good report about him and her husband insisted on showing his gratitude by buying Hogg a bridge set. It was her husband and not respondent, who chose the cards for the set.
His Honor said the cards had better be put in.
Mr. Windeyer K.C.: Put in the two Jokers: that will do.
His Honor: Two of the cards will do. They were called by some name, I believe.
Mr Windeyer: I saw the name on them, your Honor. That is how I knew what they were. (Laughter.)
Respondent said her husband brought Mr. Hogg to the flat, and told her to make a fuss of him. They went with Mr. Hogg and other friends for many week end car parties, and on such occasions as in the scene in “Boccac- cio” there was kissing going on all round.”
Her husband usually kissed the Misses Miller, Miss Dan, and other girls. Mr. Miller used to kiss witness until her husband objected. After that she tried to prevent Miller kissing her and on one occasion she slapped his face when he attempted to kiss her. Respondent denied that she kissed Hogg at those week- end parties. She also denied that she was ever away alone with Hogg in his car. It was not true, she said that in April, 1930, her husband accused her of being in the bed- room with Hogg with the light out. Her hus- band was in the room with them and the light was out only for a few seconds. After the estrangement between her husband and herself at the end of last year, she said he treated her brutally and threatend to “cut her face in such a way that no man would ever look at her.” He had pulled her out of bed, dragged her along the floor, and struck her. She left him on January 2, and went to King’s Lynn Flats, where her mother stayed with her every night but one, when her aunt was with her.
Mrs Tuckerman denied that she ever com- mitted adultery with the co-respondent.
The suit is part heard.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 4 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 4). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 5. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16829874>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in
Owen, and a jury.) TUCKERMAN V TUCKERMAN
Looking wan and weary, Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman continued her evidence yesterday, after Mr Boyce K.C., had informed his Honor that she had a temperature of 101, and the doctor had ordered her to bed Mrs Tuckerman has now been under examina- tion for two and a half days. She was fre- quently in tears.
Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman, bank clerk, is petitioning for a divorce from his wife on the ground of her adultery with Herbert A. W. W. Hogg bank manager, from whom he is claiming £5000 damages. Mrs Tucker- man, besides denying the adultery charges her husband with adultery with Claire Henkes and with cruelty.
In answer to Mr. Boyce Mrs Tuckerman said that on March 10 last she met Mr. Hogg at the Queen Victoria Markets and he drove her in his car to Liverpool, where they had tea, and then returned to town. It was not true that the car had been parked off the road on any part of the journey, or in a quiet street. Neither did she keep looking back to see if they were followed. It was untrue to say that on March 19 Mr. Hogg picked her up in Clarence-street, drove her out to Annandale, and parked the car in a lane off Booth-street from 5.30 to 7.30 p.m. Mr Hogg drove her to Booth-street on March 20, and pulled up the car for half an hour In order to look at a photograph which she had Just had taken.
Respondent said her husband told her on September 6, 1930, that he had been offered a job as accountant at the Tamworth branch of the bank. He said he did not want to go, as once in the country a man would be dead and buried. It was untrue to say that when he told respondent of his offer she burst into tears, and declared that she would not go, that she hated the country, and he could go by himself.
Mr Boyce: Did Mr Hogg say to your hus- band, “If you go to the country you will be dead and burled in no time. You stay here, and I will see that you don’t lose by it. The inspector Is a friend of mine?”-No Mr Hogg advUed my husband to go.
Respondent explained that she would not be averse to living at Tamworth as it was nearer to her father’s place on the Darling Downs. On one occasion she was in Mr Hogg’s car on the Old South Head-road, and she saw her husband. Mr Hogg asked him to jump in, and he would drive him home. Tucker- man, when he saw respondent in the car said he would walk. That was because she and her husband were not speaking to one an-other.
Mr Boyce: When Mr Tuckerman returned to the flat that evening were you sitting in the car with Hogg outside?-Yes
Did Mr Tuckerman say to Hogg, “What Is the meaning of this? I will give you five minutes, What have you got to say?”-No
Did you say to Hogg, “Don’t give any ex- planation to the swine?”-No I said, “I don’t see why you should do any explaining to a man who comes home at all hours of the night, and won’t give me any explanation.”
Did your husband take Hogg to the door of the flat and say, “Now, you get to hell out of here, and don’t come back?”-No, he did not
Respondent denied that she had ever told anyone that she would go to her parents’ home in Queensland and let her husband get a divorce for desertion. She dldn’t tell Miss Dan that she was thinking of eloping with Hogg, or that she was contemplating going abroad with “Bert”. She had never re- ceived any poetry about her eyes and hair, and how much he loved her, from Hogg. ‘I have known Mr. Hogg for two years,” she added, “and I don’t think he Is the type that could write poetry.”
Mr. Windeyer (for the co-respondent): I object to that.
His Honor: That may be to his credit.
(Laughter.)
Respondent said, in reply to Mr. Clancy, that after leaving her husband she did not
say to him over the telephone, when he told , her he intended going on with the case, “If you do, ‘Bert’ has got Windeyer, and I will get a good man, and we’ll spray you and your witnesses with mud; and you need not think you will go out of court as white as the Angel Gabriel.” Respondent said she had usually met Hogg by appointment at the Queen Victoria Markets between 5 and 6 of an evening, and sometimes her mother was with her.
The respondent was still under cross-examin-ation when the Court rose.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 5 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 5). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 8. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16810212>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice
Owen, and a Jury )
TUCKERMAN v TUCKERMAN.
When Mr Brian Clancy resumed his cross examination of Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman yesterday morning he was faced with a tired and woiried-looking witness. He sympathetically asked her whether she would prefer to have his examination postponed until later in the day. ‘I would rather get It over,” was the reply.
Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman is peti- tioning for a divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery with Herbei t A. W. W. Hogg from whom he is claiming £5000 dam- ages Mrs Tuckerman, besides denying the misconduct alleged charges her husband with adultery with Claire Henkes and with cruelty Miss Henkes lips intervened.
Mrs Tuckerman was cross-examined on cer- tain statements she had made in her evldence in-chicf regarding her husband’s alleged indul- gence in liquor, and most of her answers were given in a tearful voice.
Respondent said she did not tell her hus-band that she was going on a trip to Avoca Beach with Mr Hogg on a certain occasion.
Mr Clancy: You told us that on the occasion of the trip to Panorama House Miss Dan told improper stories?-I didn t say they were im- proper. I didn’t hear them.
You know that counsel showed a written story to Miss Dan and asked her if that was the one she told at Panorama House. Did you see that story before it was shown to the witness?-No, I did not.
I put it to you that this story you told about your husband telling you he would con- tract a disease ard give it to you is pure in-vention?
Respondent: And I put it to you that it is the truth.
Questioned about a trip to Mulgoa last Octo- ber, respondent said Mr Miller had made a remark to her husband about his taking Miss Henkes for a row on the river.
Mr Clancy: I put it to you that Mr Miller was not at that party?-and never made any remark to your husband?-I say he was at the party. I don t know why they want to say he wasn’t there.
Questioned about an occasion on which she said her husband assaulted her she said she was terribly afraid of him at the time. “He locked me in the room and came out eating cold pudding,” she added. She said that all the time that Hogg was visiting her after she left her husband the latter was not told her address.
Mr Clancy: You have had a good deal of theatrical experience and have taken part in amateur theatricals?-Yes
And E. J. Tait offered you a position?-Oh, that was a long time ago.
His Honor: When you left your flat on Janu- ary 2, did you know your husband objected to you associating in any way with Hogg?
No
So that when you left your flat you thought you were at liberty to associate with Hogg’
-Yes
Do you really mean to convey to the Jury that your husband up to January 2, didn’t seriously object to you being associated with Hogg?-Well yes he did object
Mr McDonald (for the lntervener): Were these parties you have been telling us about drinking parties?-No
You spoke about drink being consumed at Panorama House. Do you want us to believe that there was a lot of drinking going on there?
Mr Boyce: My friend is a director of Pan- orama House. That is why he is so con-cerned.
Mr McDonald: I am not and never have been.
In reply to further questions respondent said that on the Mulgoa trip her husband got a boat and took Miss Henkes for a row on the river. They returned at dusk and both looked very embarrassed. Respondent ad- mitted that following the Mulgoa incident she had had Miss Henkes at her parties, but said it was at her husbands expressed wish.
The suit is part heard.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 8 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 8). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 5. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article28039135>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge In Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, and a Jury.
TUCKERMAN V TUCKERMAN.
Hearing was continued of the petition by I Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman for a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tucker-man, (formerly Whitman), on the ground of her adultery with Herbert A. W. W. Hogg, from whom he claimed £5000 damages. Mrs. Tuckerman denied the adultery, and charged her husband with adultery with Claire Henkes, who intervened to defend the suit.
Leah Honore Humphries, respondent’s aunt, gave evidence of having seen Tuckerman in- toxicated on several occasions. She had also seen him commit acts of violence against his wife. On one occasion when Mrs. Tucker- man went with friends to dinner at the Hotel Australia Mr. Tuckerman abused her on her return, called her a “bitch,” and said he would leave the flat. He did leave, but returned later.
Mr. Clancy: You say you heard that peti- tioner was drunk on the occasion of a party at the flat?-Yes.
And did you hear also that after the party he rearranged the furniture, cleaned up, and washed up the supper things?-I believe he did.
Witness said she had lived with the Tucker- mans for three years, and did not think they lived a happy married life. It was true he did the washing at times, and washed up the dinner things. “That is the usual thing for husbands to do,” she added.
“I can’t say,” commented Mr. Clancy. “Have you seen him scrub the floors?”
Witness: I could not say, but I believe he did.
Olive Josephine Whitman, mother of re- spondent, also gave evidence of frequent quar- rels between her daughter and petitioner.
The suit is part heard.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 9 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 9). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 7. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16821950>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, and a Jury.)
TUCKERMAN V TUCKERMAN.
Evidence on behalf of the respondent and co-respondent In the Tuckerman divorce suit was given by Claude Russell Rowland, a clerk in the Crown Solicitor’s office, who was called for the respondent.
Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman is seek- ing a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman) on the ground of adultery with Herbert A. W. W. Hogg, and Mrs. Tuckerman charged her husband with adultery with Claire Henkes and with cruelty.
In reply to Mr. Boyce, K.C., Rowland said he was a friend of Hogg’s, and had gone camping with him in the mountains. He said he had never seen any familiarity between Hogg and Mrs. Tuckerman. On the occasion when he went to Brisbane by aeroplane he did not drink a bottle of brandy, nor did he tell Tuckerman that he did. He was afraid of being sick on the trip, and as a precaution- ary measure took a fla. of brandy and soda, of which he drank portion and gave the rest to passengers who were sick. He was present at the Mulgoa picnic at the end of last year when Mr. Tuckerman took Miss Henkes for a row on the river while the rest of the party played bridge by he light of the car headlights. They were away for about half an hour. Sub- sequently he had a conversation with Mr. Tuckerman In Sydney. Tuckerman told him he thought a lot of Miss Henkes and would marry her If her mother would give her consent. He also said he would marry her when he was free.
Mr. Brian Clancy: When you and Hogg went camping in the mountains, didn’t you repre- sent yourselves as journalists looking for a
story?-No.
You saw a young lady there, didn’t you?
Yes.
At the close of the respondent’s case his Honor, In response to a request by Mr. G. R. W. McDonald, dismissed the intervener, Claire Henkes, from the suit. He said he was satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence against her to go to the Jury. The question whether Mrs. Tuckerman should be ordered to pay the intervener’s costs was reserved till a later stage.
Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg, the co-respondent, denied that he had ever committed adultery with Mrs. Tuckerman. He was still under examination when the Court rose.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 10 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 10). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 6. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16810151>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, and a jury.)
TOCKERMAN V. TUCKERMAN.
Pointing out that they had now been sitting on the case for over two weeks the jurors In the Tuckerman v Tuckerman suit yesterday asked his Honor for a third increase in fees One juryman said that, so far, the jury had not received any fees.
His Honor: That is a matter for the Sheriff It was stated that the money was paid into court each day. At present each juryman is receiving £3 /15/ a day. The Jury agreed to wait until the conclusion of the case for payment of the increase in fees.
Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg, the co-respondent was in the witness-box nearly all day. He denied having advised Tuckerman to refuse his offer of a transfer to the Tamworth branch of the Bank of New South Wales. He had never told Miss Day that he loved Mrs Tuckerman and denied that he had written poetry to her. He had never been improperly intimate with Mrs Tuckerman.
Mr Clancy read a few lines of poetry begin- ning “How can I wait” to witness and asked him if he had written it. Hogg said he had copied it out of a book.
Rodney Willlim Samuel Tuckerman, the petitioner, recalled, denied allegations made against him by his wife regarding his alleged cruel treatment of her. He denied that he had ever pulled her nose or punched her.
The suit is part heard.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 11 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 11). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 5. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16806368>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, and a Jury.)
TUCKERMAN v TUCKERMAN
Evidence in reply was called in the Tucker- man v Tuckerman suit yesterday Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman is petitioning for a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman), on the ground of adultery with Herbert A. W. W. Hogg, from whom he claimed £ 5000 damages Mrs Tuckerman, who denied the misconduct, charged her husband with cruelty and with adultery with Claire Henkes, who intervened. She was dismissed from the suit on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence against her. The co-respondent also denied the adul-tery.
H. E. Moxham, manager of the Pitt-street branch of the Bank of New South Wales, said he had found Mr Tuckerman to be a man of mild demeanour, and not a violent-tempered man. Witness had endeavoured to bring Mr. and Mrs. Tuckerman together. He had spoken to Mrs Tuckerman in his office, and then interviewed the husband and wife together. Witness said that Mr Tuckerman had never been reprimanded for drinking.
Claire Henkes said she remembered the boating incident at the Mulgoa picnic last year. She went for a row on the river with Mr. Tuckerman, and they returned before dark. She heard no remarks of any kind made on their return.
Cross-examined by Mr Boyce, K.C., wit- ness said she never heard that a stipulation had been made by Mrs Tuckerman that before there could be a reconciliation between her- self and her husband the latter must see no more of witness. Witness had gone to the pictures with Mr. Tuckerman, and she knew that Mrs. Tuckerman had objected to her doing so. Mr. Tuckerman had never proposed marriage to her in any way, and had never suggested marriage in the event of his being free.
The suit is still part heard.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 12 Sep 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 12). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 6. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16825891>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge In Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, and a jury.)
TUCKERMAN v TUCKERMAN.
After a hearing of 15 days, the Tuckerman suit has now reached the stage of counsels’ addresses, which were in progress when the Court adjourned yesterday. The petitioner is Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman, the respondent Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tucker- man (formelly Whitman), and the co-respon- dent Herbert A. W. W. Hogg, bank manager, from whom petitioner is claiming £5000 damages.
In opening his address to the jury, Mr Boyce, K.C., counsel for the respondent, paid a warm tribute to Mr Brian Clancy, counsel for peti-tioner, for the “fairness and ability with which he has conducted this long case, single- handed.” Mr Boyce also complimented the legal profession at large on the fact that after three weeks of a trying case there had been no brushes among the Bar and no breezes with the Bench. ‘ Probably,” added Mr Boyce with a smile, “that is due to his Honor’s courtesy to us all.” Mr Boyce also said that both sides had used their very best endeavours to prevent the case coming into court at all.

• Divorce Notice: £2000 DAMAGES., 18 Sep 1931. ⁷ £2000 DAMAGES. (1931, September 18). The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864-1933), p. 11. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from<http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article21762189>
DAMAGES.
DIVORCE ACTION ENDS.
SYDNEY. September 17.
After a hearing which occupied 19 days and created considerable public interest, the suit in which Rodney Wil- liam Samuel Tuckerman, bank clerk, petitioned for a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman, ended to- day. The jury found all the issues in favour of Tuckerman, and awarded him £2000 damages from Herbert A. W. W. Hogg, the co-respondent.

• Divorce Notice: £2000 DAMAGES., 18 Sep 1931. ⁷ £2000 DAMAGES. (1931, September 18). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 10. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from<http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16820912>
DAMAGES.
Tuckerman Divorce.
JURY’S VERDICT.
The Tuckerman suit was concluded yester- day, after a hearing which occupied 19 days
The Jury, after a retirement of an hour and a half, found all the issues in favour of the petitioner and awarded him £2000 damages They found the adultery proved against re- spondent and co-respondent, and not proved against the petitioner and the intervener. The wife’s charge of cruelty was found In the negative
On the announcement of the verdict there was an attempt at applause, which was im-mediately suppressed.
His Honor, addressing the Jury, said: “I wish, gentlemen, to tender you my sincere gratitude for the trouble you have taken in this long and arduous case I realise that each one of you has made very great sacrifices in the service of your country, and if you choose to make application to be excused from further service I will consider it, and I will assist you if it lies in my power.”
The foreman of the Jury paid a tribute to his Honor for his courtesy and the absolute fairness with which he had treated everybody concerned.
His Honor said he would not pronounce the decree nisi until a later date, as there was the questions of costs and custody to be dis-cussed.
Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman, bank clerk, had petitioned for a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman) on the ground of adultery with Herbert A. W. W. Hogg, bank manager, from whom he claimed £5000 damages. Mrs. Tuckerman had charged her husband with cruelty and adultery with Claire Henkes, and asked for a divorce on that ground. Miss Henkes was dismissed from the suit at an early stage.

• Divorce Notice: DAMAGES IN DIVORCE., 18 Sep 1931. ⁷ DAMAGES IN DIVORCE. (1931, September 18). The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926-1954), p. 6. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from<http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2255312>
DAMAGES IN DIVORCE
Lengthy Suit Ended
SYDNEY, Thursday.
The Tuckerman divorce suit, which has been in progress for nearly three weeks, concluded to-day when the jury returned a verdict for the petitioner and awarded him £2.000 damages against the co-respondent Herbert Hogg.
Mr Justice Owen pronounced a de- cree nisi.
The petitioner in the case was Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman clerk in the Bank of New South Wales. He sought a divorce from Elizabeth Bryda Tuckerman on the ground of her misconduct with Her- bett Hogg manager of the Epping branch of the Bank of New South Wales. He claimed £5,000 damages from Hogg.
Mrs Tuckerman lodged a cross petition on the grounds of misconduct and cruelty.
The Jury found that the allegations by Miss Tuckerman against her hus- band were not true.
Mr Justice Owen will pronounce a decree nisi to-morrow.

• Divorce Notice: LAW REPORT. FULL COURT., 11 Feb 1932. ⁷ LAW REPORT. FULL COURT. (1932, February 11). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 6. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16839996>
LAW REPORT
FULL COURT.
(Before the Chief Justice, Sir Phillp Street, Mr. Justice James, and Mr. Justice Halse Rogers.)
DIVORCE APPEAL.
Tuckerman v Tuckerman.
The hearing was continued of an application for a new trial of issues tried before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, in a suit, in which Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman was petitioner, Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tucker- man was respondent, and Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg was co-respondent. The suit was a consolidated one, in which Tucker- man alleged adultery by his wife with Hogg, and Mrs. Tuckerman charged her husband with adultery and cruelty.
The jury found all issues in favour of the petitioner, and awarded him £2000 damages against the co-respondent, Hogg. Appeals by way of this application were lodged, both by the respondent and co-respondent.
Practically the whole of the argument has turned on whether the jury, when considering the petitioner’s charges of adultery, were limi-ted in their findings to the dates set out in the particulars, or whether it was competent for them to find that adultery had taken place within specified dates.
Mr. Justice Halse Rogers, addressing Mr. Brian Clancy, counsel for the petitioner, asked: “Do you say that although the jury might have found not proven the charges of adultery at Avoca Beach and the other places specified, on the general evidence in the case they would be entitled to find adultery at some place and on some date which they could not specify?”
Mr. Clancy: Yes.
Mr. Justice Halse Rogers: So that comes down to “divers other times and places.”
Mr. Clancy: No, your Honor. There are three positions to be considered. The jury could be convinced as to adultery at a definite time and place; they could be convinced as to a definite place, but not be able to supply the time; and they could be convinced that the relations of the parties have resulted in adul- tery, but they cannot say at what time or place it occurred.
The matter is part heard.
Mr. Windeyer, K C, and Mr. Toose (instruc- ted by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jennings) appeared for the appellant (co-respondent) ; Mr. H. G. Edwards (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the appellant (respondent) ; and Mr. Brian Clancy (instruc- ted by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson and Co.) for the petitioner.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 17 Oct 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, October 17). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 10. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16808430>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge In Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen.)
TUCKERMAN V TUCKERMAN.
The Tuckerman v Tuckerman suit was before the Court yesterday for the purpose of argument as to costs, custody of the child of the marriage, Warwick Angus Tuckerman, and for the pronouncing of the decree nisi.
At the outset a novel point was taken by Mr. Windeyer, K.C., leading counsel for the co-respondent, who objected that his Honor had no power to pronounce the decree nisi as the jury which tried the case had not been empanelled in accordance with the Divorce Act. His objection was based on the fact that the jury of four was selected from two panels, which Is the usual practice in the Divorce Court, but contrary to statute, said counsel. His Honor overruled the objection, remarking that it was a matter for the Full Court.
Argument as to costs and custody had not concluded when the Court rose.
Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman peti- tioned for a divorce from Elizabeth” Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whitman) on the ground of her adultery with Herbert Alexander william Wallace Hogg, from whom petitioner claimed £5000 damages. The jury found the Issues in favour of petitioner, and awarded him £2000 damages. Mrs. Tucker- man charged her husband with having com- mitted adultery with Claire Henkes, but the charge was disproved, and Miss Henkes was dismissed from the suit.
Mr. Brian Clancy (instructed by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson, and Co.) appeared for the petitioner; Mr. F. S. Boyce, K.C., and Mr. H. G. Edwards (Instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent; Mr. R. Windeyer, K.C., and Mr. S. V. Toose (in- structed by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jen- nings) for the co-respondent: and Mr. G. R. W. McDonald (instructed by Messrs. F. Curtlss and Son) for the intervener.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE., 20 Oct 1931. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1931, October 20). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 6. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16802685>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen.)
TUCKERMAN v TUCKERMAN.
Argument was concluded with respect to custody and costs in the suit of Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman v Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman (formerly Whit- man), in which the petitioner was awarded £2000 damages by a Jury against the co- respondent, Herbert A. W. W. Hogg, and all the issues were found in his favour. The lntervener, Claire Henkes, was early dis-missed from the suit.
With regard to the question of the custody of the child, Warwick Angus Tuckerman, eight, his Honor, by consent, made an order for the father to have the legal custody of the boy, but that he be allowed to remain in his mother’s charge in Brisbane until he reached the age of 11 years, conditional upon the father having the right to have the child during the summer and winter holidays.
In respect to costs, Mr. Clancy, counsel for the petitioner, suggested that instead of mak- ing, the usual order in such cases, that the husband pay his wife’s costs and then recover them from the co-respondent, his Honor should direct that the husband recover the costs direct from the co-respondent, or as much of them as he could, and himself pay the unrecovered balance. Otherwise, the petitioner would have to pay a large sum of money, which he probably could not find, and wait to recover portion of it from the co- respondent.
Mr. Boyce, K.O., counsel for the respon- dent, submitted that the order asked for would be a negation of the principle Invariably followed. The wife’s solicitors always looked to the husband for her costs. The High Court judgment in Fremlln v Frémito made that perfectly clear.
His Honor: Is there anything impracticable in the suggestion? Tax the wife’s costs, and order that the husband is at liberty to re- cover them from the co-respondent, and, to the extent that he Is unable to do so, he to pay the balance? I want to be fair to you, Mr. Boyce, and at the same time avoid mak- ing the husband find a large sum of money before he can recover anything from the co- respondent.
Mr. Boyce said he had no objection to such an order If there was a proviso that the wife’s costs should be the first paid.
Mr. Windeyer, K.C., counsel for the co- respondent, submitted that there was no rea- son why other than the usual order should be made. The case was not one In which there should be such a departure. He ad- mitted, however, that his Honor had power to make any order he thought fit.
His Honor pronounced a decree nisi, return- able In six months. He ordered the £2000 damages to be paid Into court within three months, to abide the further order of the Court. With regard to costs, his Honor said it was dangerous to depart from a settled practice of the Court, and he therefore ordered the petitioner to pay his wife’s costs, and to recover the amount paid from the co-respon- dent afterwards. The co-respondent would have to pay the whole of the petitioner’s costs, including those arising from the wife’s cross charges. The intervener’s costs to be paid by the wife, to the extent of her separate estate, and the co-respondent.
Mr. Brian Clancy (instructd by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson, and Co.) appeared for the petitioner; Mr. F. S. Boyce, K.C., and Mr. H. G. Edwards (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent; Mr. R. Windeyer, K.C., and Mr. S. V. Toose (in- structed by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jen- nings) for the co-respondent; and Mr. G. R W. McDonald (instructed by Messrs. F. Curtiss and Son) for the lntervener.

• Divorce Notice: LAW REPORT. FULL COURT., 5 Feb 1932. ⁷ LAW REPORT. FULL COURT. (1932, February 5). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 6. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from<http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16839035>
FULL COURT.
(Before the Chief Justice, Sir Philip Street, Mr. Justice James, and Mr. Justice Halse Rogers.)
DIVORCE APPEAL.
Tuckerman v Tuckerman.
The hearing was begun of an application for a new trial of issues tried before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, in September last in a suit in which Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman was petitioner, Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman was respondent, and Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg was co-respondent. The suit was a consolidated one, in which Tuckerman alleged adultery by his wife with Hogg and Mrs. Tuckerman charged her husband with adultery and cruelty.
The jury found all issues In favour of the petitioner, and awarded him £2000 damages against the co-respondent, Hogg. The Judge granted Tuckerman a decree nisi on the jury’s finding.
Appeals were lodged by both respondent and co-respondent, but at the opening counsel for Mrs. Tuckerman announced that she had not the funds win which to prosecute her appeal, the substantial grounds of which were those taken by the co-respondent. Counsel said he proposed to watch his client’s interests solely on the question of costs.
The grounds of appeal of the co-respondent were: (1) That the verdict was against the weight of evidence; (2) that h_ Honor had misdirected the Jury as to the necessity of proof of opportunity on the dates given in the petitioner’s particulars: (3) that his Honor misdirected the jury In telling them that It was possible to find the issue of adultery on dates other than those specified in the par-ticulars; (4) that the Jury was not summoned, empanelled, and constituted according to the mandatory provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act; (5) that the damages were exces-sive.
The hearing was adjourned until Monday.
Mr. Windeyer, K.C., and Mr. Toose (in- structed by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jen ninis) appeared for the appellant (co-respon- dent); Mr. H. G. Edwards (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the appelant (respondent) ; and Mr. Brian Clancy (instructed by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson, and Co.) for the petitioner.

• Divorce Notice: LAW REPORT. FULL COURT., 25 Mar 1932. ⁷ LAW REPORT. FULL COURT. (1932, March 25). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 9. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from<http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16850594>
LAW REPORT.
–
FULL COURT.
Before the Chief Justice, Sir Phillp Street, Mr. Justice James, and Mr Justice Halse Rogers.)
NEW TRIAL GRANTED.
Divorce Appeal: Tuckerman v Tuckerman.
The Court unanimously allowed an applica-tion for a new trial of issues tried before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, in a suit in which Rodney William Samuel Tuckerman was petitioner; Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuck- erman was respondent; and Herbert Alexander William Wallace Hogg was co-respondent.
The suit was a consolidated one, in which Tuckerman alleged adultery by his wife with Hogg, and Mrs Tuckerman charged her hus-band with adultery and cruelty. The Jury found all issues in favour of the petitioner, and awarded him £ 2000 damages against the co-respondent, Hogg. On the findings, the Judge in Divorce pronounced a rule nisi for dissolu -tion of the marriage. Appeals were lodged both by the respondent and co-respondent, but before the matter came on for hearing the respondent infoimed the solicitors for peti- tioner that she was unable through lack of funds to prosecute her appeal, and although counsel appeared on her behalf at the hearing he took no part in the hearing on the questions raised.
Mr. Justice Halse Rogers, In giving Judg- ment, said that the point taken at the trial by Mr. Windeyer (for co-respondent) appeared to have been clearly taken, that the jury should have been directed that in a case where the evidence was circumstantial, as it was in this case, and there was nothing outside the oral evidence to warrant a finding of adultery, they must examine in regard to each occasion on Which adultery was alleged as to whether there was opportunity, and if they determined that there was opportunity then there was the further question for their consideration; did the evidence satisfy them that adultery had on that occasion been committed. It was per- fectly clear that the direction was not given, and if Mr. Windeyer was entitled to such a direction he was entitled to succeed on this appeal.
Viewing the matter on principle, said his Honor, and in the first place without references to the cases, it seemed to the Court that the direction asked for should have been given. The starting point was that a charge of adul-tery must be proved in the same way as a criminal charge, that was, the jury must be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Con- sequently, where there was nothing which could be regarded as an admission of guilt and where specific occasions were indicated as those on which adultery was committed, it seemed clear that no person could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt as to any one of them, unless he examined each occasion as to the opportunity which existed, and as to the likeli- hood of that opportunity being availed of. The determination of the latter question, of course, depended upon the general evidence which would tend to show guilty passion, and in this particular case there was abundant evidence to how that the parties had formed such an attachment so that it was open to the Jury to find that if on any particular occasion oppor- tunity for adultery occurred it would be com- mitted. But it was not open to a Jury in such a case to say: “We have examined each of the occasions mentioned and we are unable to say ehether on any particular occasion an op- portunity occurred for committing adultery, but considering the association of the parties amd their feelings towards one another we are convinced that adultery must have taken place on some occasion or other.” If a jury, where there were specific allegations as to time and place, were unable to make up their minds that any paiticular time and place afforded an opportunity, then, clearly, as to those occasions they could not be convinced in the legal sense of the fact of adultery. Their feelings could he nothing more than suspicion, and they would be basing their finding on the intention of the parties instead of an accomplishment of purpose. So that In a case of this sort it was essential that each individual occasion should be examined as to opportunity.
His Honor said it was clear from the passages read from the summing up that in the early stages the learned Judge was directing the jury in quite a contrary sense, that he was in fact telling them that although their attention was directed to particular occasions on which the parties met they could take into account all they knew of the feelings of the parties, and without determining specially whether adultery occurred on any of the occasions charged they could find generally that in their opinion adultery was committed between the dates mentioned in the issues. If that was a correct view not only would there be no need for particulars, but in the opinion of the Full Court the giving of particulars would be mis- leading. His Honor added that the Court be- lieved that the trial Judge’s summing up was based on too broad a view of the rule as stated in Allen v Allen. The Court refused to entertain the further point that the whole trial was a nullity because the jury had not been empanelled in accordance with the pro-visions of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
The order of the Pull Court was that the findings of the jury on the issues of adultery between the respondent and co-respondent and of damages would be set aside. The findings on, the other issues would stand, and so also would the order dismissing the intervener from the suit with costs. A new trial would be on the issues so set aside. The costs of this motion must be paid by petitioner, and the costs of the first trial, other than the costs of the Intervener, would be costs in the cause.
Mr. Windeyer, K.C., and Mr. Toose (in- structed by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jen- nings) appeared for the appellant (co-respon- dent); Mr. H. G. Edwards (Instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the ap- pellant (respondent) ; and Mr. Brian Clancy (Instructed by Messrs. Peiklns, Stevenson, and Co.) for the petitioner.

• Divorce Notice: LAW REPORT., 26 May 1932. ⁷ LAW REPORT. (1932, May 26). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 5. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16919026>
ISSUES IN DIVORCE.
Tuckerman v Tuckerman.
This was an application following the grant- ing of a new trial of issues tried before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen, in a suit in which Rodney William Samuel Tucker- man was petitioner; Elizabeth Bryda Lurline Tuckerman was respondent; and Herbert Alex-ander William Wallace Hogg was co-respon- dent. The Full Court had previously ordered that the findings of the jury on the issues of adultery between the respondent and co- respondent and between the co-respondent and the respondent, and the issue of damages should be set aside, and had ordered a new trial.
Mr. Brian Clancy, counsel for petitioner, now asked for the deletion from the order of the Full Court of the direction that there should be a new trial of issue number two – the issue of respondent’s adultery with the co-respondent. He said that the respondent had withdrawn her appeal, and the Full Court had no Jurisdiction to make the order.
Mr. Boyce, K.C., senior counsel for the res- pondent, said that she did not desire a new trial of the issue found against her. The fact was that she desired a divorce. On the question of costs there had been discussions between the parties, and there had also been a fresh arrangement concerning the custody of the child.
Mr. Windeyer, K.C., senior counsel for the co-respondent, said his client was in the posi- tion that if the petitioner insisted on a new trial, although Hogg had an order for costs of the new trial motion, he might be saddled with the costs of the original trial and of the new trial, win or lose, and in view of that he had advised his client to enter into an agreement.
The agreement was tendered to the Court by Mr. Windeyer, who asked that it should be filed.
The order made by the Court was that the order of the Court on the new trial motion should not include a new trial of Issue two, which was the issue of the res-pondent’s adultery, and that the order should be limited to a new trial of the issues of co-respondent’s adultery and of damages. The Court approved of the terms of settlement filed.
It was mentioned in argument that the decree absolute could be drawn up immediately, and Mr. Windeyer indicated that he would have the amended order taken out forthwith, and that he would proceed to taxation of the intervener’s costs within a week.
Mr. Brian Clancy (instructed by Messrs. Perkins, Stevenson, and Co.) appeared for petitioner; Mr. Boyce, K.C., and Mr. H. G. Edwards (Instructed by Messrs. Thomas Rose and Dawes) for the respondent; Mr. Windeyer, K.C., and Mr. S. V. Toose (instructed by Messrs. Mervyn Finlay and Jennings) for the co-respondent; and Mr. G. R. W. McDonald (Instructed by Messrs. Curtlss and Dez arnaulds) for the Intervener.

• Divorce Notice: IN DIVORCE, 17 Aug 1932. ⁷ IN DIVORCE. (1932, August 17). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842-1954), p. 8. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article16917077>
IN DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Owen.)
DECREES ABSOLUTE.