IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // 1.0 I.I 1.25 I 40 12.0 11= 1-4 IIIIII.6 V] <^ /}. A 0% ^;> y /^ Photographic Sciences Corporation TO <^ "^^ ^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET ^ WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The toti The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured inl< (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) D D D H Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6X6 filmdes. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont paut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. Pages restored and/or laminated/ ^ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies \^ □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piqu6es □Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes r~~l/ Showthrough/ I _] Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression □ includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire I — I Only edition available/ The post of tl film Oric beg the sior oth( first sior or il The she TIN whi Mai diff enti beg rig^ req me' D Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'erruta, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes 6 nouveau de faqon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fllm6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X i8X 22X 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X Ills iu iifier ine age The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustreted impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grice h la gAnirositi de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont MA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de l'exemplaire fiimA, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont filmis en commengant par le premie^ plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'lllustration, soit par ie second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sont filmto en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte u.^e telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la derniArt> image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmte it des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ciich6, il est film* A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. rata >elure. □ 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE DILLON DIVORCE CASE. STATEMENT OF COUNSEL. i« ^■HP^" / ? 9y 4 i THE DILLON DIVORCE OV\.SE. STATEMENT OF COUNSEL. li Mr. R. D. McOiblK)n, Q.C.. Counsel for Petitioner, made the following statement lu^fore the Private Bills Committee of the House of Commons, July 11th, 1894: Having l)een counsel for petitioner during all these proceedings, and attorney for him in the separation suit liefore the Superior Court in Montreal, having heen his life- long friend, and legal adviser for the last fifteen years, he felt he could refute some of the contentions of those opposing the granting of the divorce, and afford satisfactory explana- tions of other points which might, on a cursory perusal of the testimony, appear ohscure or unsatisfactory. THE SEPARATION IN PARIS. It had iH'en asserted lK)tii in the Senate and House of Commons, that Dillon iiad wantonly abandoned and deserted his wife in Pi' ris, after they had been married nearly five years. Now, the I'acts as established by the testimony are that " there was a mutual separation agreeil upon," and he " left her in charge of her father in Paris." (Senate evidence, page 1). " By mutual consent " (page 3) The causes which led up to the separation arc enumerated as follows — 1. " Our life had lK.'en a very unpleasant one for two or three years before." 2. ' Continued absence from home, neglect of children and other duties." 3. " Incompatability and extravagance." (Senate evidence page 2). 4. " Leaving home against Dillon's ab.solute commands.', (Senate evidence pages 3 4). These causes certainly warrat\ted lM»th j>arties in agreeing in Montreal to have a voluntar}' separation. There ivus no necessiiif for any deed <yr writing. The consent of all parties, (which counsel Inigs to state upon his n^spoiisibility as coun.sel, included the parents of l)oth parties and their legal advi.sers), was sufficient. Dillon took his wife to Paris and left her with her father there, for the very reasonable object of avoiding the .scandal which would have l)een caused had two parties occupying a tolerably prominent po.sition in M(»ntreal society, lived apart in the city in which they had formerly resided, "^fhe idea of her going to Paris was to escape gossip. There is no doubt that the eviiUmce of Mr. Dillon given before the Senate C(mimitt«ie on oro.ss-examination by Senator Kaull;>ach is not as clear as might be in ivgard to the separa- tion in Paris, but it is (juite evident from the testimony, and more especially from the explannt*/ry que.stion ask«)d by the Honourable Mr. Mackay, at the bottom of page two of the evidence, that Dillon, somewhat confu.se<l by the questions of Senator Kaulbach in regard to his religion, chastity and other points which had occasioned quite a .storm in the Committee, and agitated by the otfeiisive nmnner in which the interrogation of Senator Kaulbach was conducted, was referring to the action for reparation brought by him in Montreal. At the time Dillon separated from his wife in Paris, he had not then any idea of taking legal proceedings, » >V-1 ?» 'rV* i»<'r.^«iivf^ ■v>'Tt^ff^#^F^»^^'»^Yrirv'w.f»' mm^ i i an<l tills was what liis cxaininatioTi meant, as, from tlu* time ln' left Montreal with liis wife to p> to Paris, and left her there, the separation ha<l heen arranp>«l, <l(>ei(Je<l,and A(iHKEI) ll'ON HY BOTH PaKTIKS. It is to he ohserved that the wife retunu-d to Montn-al shortly, and she took up lu-r ahode with her ntother, with whom she r«'side<l for six years, all the time hein^ in receipt of a snhstantial allowanee from Dillon, and liein^^ permitted to visit her children weekly at the home of Mr. Dillon's pai'ents. If the wife had heen rudely <leserted as pretended, ami leit in a Uiv^v v'xiy, frlendlcKs, n/oiw aiu\ destilate, us hoiuv SiMiators have thought fit to imagine and allege, the laws of the Province of Quehec would haveattorded her ample redress, if she had desiicd to resume her marital relations with her hushand, or if she had heen in any way unjustly treateti or unfairly deprived of a honu' and the society of her children. The Vkrr that kok six years she griKTi-Y hesided with HEU MOTHER, VISITED HEK (HILDUEN ONLY ON("E A WEEK, KECEIVKW an AM-()WAN('E ok FIFTY Mol.LAKS A MONTH FROM HER Hl'SRANI). WITHOUT ANY PROTEST OR I.E(!AL l'RO(EEI»IN(JS, SHOWS THAT SHE (MINSKNTKD TO AND RATIFIED THE SEPARA- TION WHICH HAD HEEN (JREED UPON, AND THAT THE HIMJABOO WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED ON THIS POINT IS ENTIRELY UNWAR- RANTED. Mr. Mcdihhon further explained that had the petitioner for otie moment imagined that an}' imp(jrtance woiihl he attacluMl in the Senate or Hou.se of Commons, to the causes which led up to and surroundcid the separation in Paris, testimony couM easily have heen adduci'(l to make the matter perfectly clear; hut with a delicacy which was creditahle to him, Mr. Dillon had not desired uiniecessarilv to introduce anv testimony which, in his opinion, was not germaine to the real issues hefore the Senate. So much for this point. Insinuations had heen made Ijoth in the S«'nate and House of Conunons, fchat there was collusion and connivance between the patties. This, in the face of positive testimony that there 6 'm was no collusion, ronnivann' or ooiuloiiation is inroinpn-heii- niMe. TIh' jM'titioiuT, on j»h^»' 2. swears positively timt tlu'n» was no coiiiiivanc*'. On pages II and 12 of the Smatr iostiniony, tlu' tacts in regard to collusion ant srt forth l»y coinisrl liiuisrlf under <witli,and Mr. .lames 'I'. Dillon, father of the petitioner, on i>ag»' ]',i of the testimony, swears positively that tluire was no connivance or collusion The letter on page !(> of the Senate testimony, vvas a<ldres- sed by Mrs Dillon to Mr. Mc(iil»oon not in reply to any letter s. nt hy him to her hut in reply to a request which Mr. Mr. Mcdihhon had sent to his corresponilent in Quehec, Mr. Kitzpatrick VC'. . asking Mr. Kit/.patrick to keep him, Mr. Me(ilil»l»on, advised of Mrs. Dillon's addre.ss, in order th.it tho nece.s.sary n«)tice shoidd he served upon her, of the commence- nu>nt of ])roceedings Kefctre the Senate Committee. The expression of a wish on the part of a woman at that time living openlv and avowedly as the mistress of de Villeneuve caiuiot surely form a peg upon winch to hang this suggestion of collusion, (':onfronte<l as it is hy the positive testimony referre<l to, and also hy the evidence of de Villeneuve himself hefore the Superior Court in Montreal, page 18 where he admits that he had never seen Mr. Dillon him.self in his life. The only other point which Mr. McCJihhon would refer to was the (piestion asked hy Senator Kaulhach as to Mr. Dillon's fidelity to his marriage vows. 'I'he di.scussion on this point had heen very full, and the legal arguments of his a.ssociate, Mr. (lennnill Q. (I had, he thought, (|uite met the ohjection.s, hut the circum.stances which led up to Ddlon's refusing to answer on tlu; advice of coun.sel, would, he thought, sati.sfactorily explain his cour.se. When the Senate Committee was in session, as appears hy the minutes of the proceedings, a nundier of irrelevant 'pies- tions were asked by Senator Kaulhach, objected to by nu?m- bers of the Committee, aad overruled and stricken from the record. When the question in regard to Mr. Dillon's fidelity >(./Vi' \ }i»ul IxMTi put l>y Sf'iuitor K»mH»acli, it was iniinr<ljatp|y, fts n|){M>Hi's Jty th«' Snuitt' rrconl. «)l»j»'rt«'<l to Ity thr HiumnrHlilo Mr. MfU'kay, vvli»'r«'U|)uii u Inipthy tliscusj^iun took |)I»u'«', tho ruliiij; liaviii;( Ihth Hctiially ^ivfii l>y tlir ( 'oiiiiiiitt«M' l«'foio tlie formal aiiswrr of tli»' w itiirss that lir rrl'iisi'd t<» answer upon advice of coillisel ha*! Iieell eliteletl Upon tlie recol'ti of tile Si'iiate proceedings. The reasons why connsej atlvised Mr. Dillon to refuse to answer, were a matter of h^ral appre- ciation an<l in view of the rules of the Senate respecting,' divoice, under wliicli tlie ohj«'ction was taken, and all tlie j)rece(h'nts lespectin^^ divorce, including' tin' uniform practice of the Senate, as exjilained l»y Mr. (iemmill, they were justified in staixlin^' upon their strict le;^o»l rii,dits in the |)renii.s«'.s. The statement of opinion of the majority <»f the Senat*' Committee liy Senator (Jowan, chairman, ;^d\t'n «ni |»a<^e ',i of the Senate proceediiij^s, amply explains wluit the attitude of tlie C'ommitte*' was : the rule liavin;; heen that unless there was a coimter chartre or some .such condition of artairs as in England wouM jn.stify the intervention of the Queen's Proctor, the Committe*' ou<,dit not under the rules, to ask .such <pies- iums ex jtro/H'ia mutii. Had Mr. Dillon been ordere(| to ans- wer any (|Uestit»n hy the (\»nnnittee, he would and must have answered, and no presumption is to he taki'ii ai^ainst him for Ids refiisal. Any such inference is unfair and contrary to the rules of evidi'uce. Nor (loos the willinL^ess with which Dillon answered th(» (juestions as to his fidelity u[» to the time of his visit to I'aris necessarily or fairly iniply that if he had heen asked the fpiestions to his conduct suhse(|U»>nt to that date, his answers would not have h(!en (piite satisfactory. Xo such le<.^al ird'er- ence can be made. Mr. Dillon answered all <|Uestions which were lawfully put to him. liv was never ordered to answer any question, as to his suhscijuent conduct, and the right of Senator Kaulbach tt) ask such (juestious was distinctly ob- jected to by Senators themselves, overruled by the Com- mitter and stricken from the record. Mr. Dillon was never 1 placed in the position of rofnsinjjf to answer any (juestions as to his chastity sul»s<'«|U('nt to his srpuration from his wife in Paris. (■ounsel strongly contendcil tliat it was iinffiir to endeavour to int<'i-poUite sui^^rstions and make evi<lence from inferences whieh were improperly «h*HWii from the petitioner havin^^ on tho advice of Ids counsel rrfnsod to answer a (piestioii, tlu' r«*sj)()nsihility for which rested upon them. No matter what tlu' practice is in other Provinces where <livorces are ^rant«'d, the proceihire of the Senate and of Parliament had heen otherwise, and these {)roceedin^s liavint; heen instituted under rules of j)ractice, and a jurisprudence wliicii was invariable in this respect, the petition<r was I'utitled to have his coniluct and Ids pi^tition adjudijed and adjudicated upon, accordin<x to the rules which liad pieviously ohtained. With resjiect to Mr. Dillon, he was now in Kni^land on his aninuil husiness trip, havim^ left on May lOtli. I hid he thought he would 1h> recalled, he would have remained on this side, hut lu; could not now return in tinu; to allow Mr. McAllister'.s motion to be effective, otherwise tlian as throw- ing the Bill out. Un<ler all the circumstances of the case, considering that this woman had not only fallen from virtue, l>ut had openly, wantonly, and flagrantly lived on the principal street in Montreal, in adultery witli this alleged t^ount. — had gone to Quebec with him and registered as Madame de Villeneuvc;, — and had subsequently, when his extradition was pronounced, accompanied him to France, whei-e he is now incarcerated, it should certainly re(p;ire nuich more than any objection which had been urged, it seemed to him, to warrant Parliament in refusing to dissolve a marriage tie, an<l compel a. man whose whole life had been honourable and upright, to renuiin joined to a woman whose conduct was not only unjustiflable, but conspicuously and outrageously immoral, impure, and scanda- lous. ■ ' . , r: • . J '.