Person Page - 547

Newspaper-Articles

• 11 Mar 1891: ANOTHER DIVORCE CASE AT SYDNEY.
  Last week the Hon. William M'Millan obtained a divorce from his wife, who was formerly Miss Graham, of Ballarat, on the grounds of adultery with Brian Darley and Kenneth Stuart. The case was heard before Mr Justice Windeyer, who granted a decree nisi. The peculiar feature about the affair is that it only leaked out accidentally and no information whatever can be obtained from the officials of the court, who appear to have been bound down to secrecy. There is considerable feeling over the matter in public. circles.—Telegraph. William McMillan⁴
• 3 Sep 1891: The M'Millan Divorce Suit. OPPOSITION TO THE DECREE ABSOLUTE.
  Before Mr. Justice Windeyer, sitting in Divorce Jurisdiction to-day, the matter of M'Millan versus M'Millan came on for hearing.
  The suit was one in which Mr. William M'Millan, ex-Colonial Treasurer, sought to obtain a dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Ada Charlotte M'Millan, on the ground of her adultery with Brian Darley and Kenneth Stuart.
  Mr. Ralston, on behalf of the petitioner, moved to make absolute the decree nisi granted on February 26. He quoted from the authorities to show that everything required by law had been done to entitle the petitioner to the decree absolute, and he argued that no affidavits having been filed in opposition the Court could not allow any one to come into the court at the last moment in opposition to the decree absolute.
  Mr. Norton : Does the learned gentleman contend that I have no locus standi ?
  His Honor: Yes, that is what it amounts to.
  Mr. Norton, who appeared in person to oppose the motion, conteaded that he having been served with an affidavit from the petitioner's solicitors was sufficient to give him a locus standi. He h ad been refused access to the petition and the evidence taken at the trial.
  His Honor : What interest have you in this case ? Are you connected to Mrs. M'Millan ?
  Mr. Norton : No, I am not connected to the lady, but as one of the third party, the public, I had a right to come in and intervene.
  His Honor : What are you : Mr. Norton said he was a journalist, and his action now in the matter was the sequence to some reference made in his paper. He had been refused leave to enter an appearance. He thought he had put sufficient before his Honor to justify him in suspending his final decision in the matter. He was quite prepared to show that at the time the case was heard the respondent was in Sydney, and was hiding away in a
  garret.
  His Honor : I won't allow you to make any statements unless on affidavit.
  Mr. Norton (continuing) trusted that if he was irregularly before the Court his Honor would consent to a suspension of the matter, so as to allow him to place himself regularly before the Court. He argued that his position in the matter was identical with the position of the Queen's Proctor, and he was justified in intervening. He contended the decree was obtained contrary to the justice of the case, and was prepared to bring evidence in support of his contention. He hoped the matter would be adjourned, in order to allow him to bring before the Court certain material that had not been placed before the Court when the decree was granted. Had he been allowed to see the petition there may not have been any intervention now, but when he made application to the officers in divorce to peruse the papers in the case, he was informed they were not filed, consequently he was debarred from working up his case. He held that having entered an appearance, and paid the customary fee, he was entitled to see all the papers in connection with the case.
  His Honor: What have you to say to costs supposing this matter is decided against you ?
  Mr. Norton submitted he could not be condemned in costs, and he quoted the ruling of the Judge Ordinary in the case of Vivian v. Vivian and the Marquis of Waterford to support his argument. He applied to his Honor to facilitate him in coming before the Court in an absolutely regular way.
  His Honor in giving judgment intimated that after the decree nisi had been granted the intervener applied to the officers of the court to be allowed to see the papers in the case, and the officers, in pursuance of instructions from his Honor, in accordance with the practice in the court for years, refused to allow him to see the papers, he being no party in the case. The Court had control over its own proceedings, and it was not right that parties having no interest in the case should be allowed to pry into these cases, which oftentimes were of a very painful character. Having been refused leave to peruse the papers in the suit, he applied to enter an appearance, and this was conceded. Inquiries subsequently made elicited the fact that no affidavits had been served upon the opposite parties. It being quite clear that the applicant had not complied with the rules of Court, and there appearing not sufficient grounds for the application, he came to the conclusion that it should be refused. The question was — had the intervener made out any case to stop the petitioner getting his decree absolute, or whether this motion should be further delayed. In the opinion the intervener
  had made out no such case. The affidavits filed by the intervener did not disclose any facts, but simply made statements on hearsay, saying the intervener had been informed by a member of Parliament and a prominent member of the community, and this was not sufficient evidence upon which the Court could act. No affidavits had been filed giving any evidence whatever. Under those circumstances he was unable to comply with the
  application of the intervener. There was also nothing disclosed to show why this motion should be farther adjourned.
  The application of the intervener was refused. According to the law, the expense to which the intervener had unjustifiably put the petitioner to should be paid by the petitioner. He was much disposed to think that the law should be amended in this respect. The intervener had brought forward no evidence to induce him to think that this was a bona fide intervention. He directed that the affidavit be taken off the file and made an order, directing Norton not to publish any of the evidence taken in the case. He was glad to say that the daily papers had in the past exercised a wise discretion in publishing the details of the Divorce Court, which were in many cases of a distressing and disgusting character. He therefore made the decree nisi absolute, and declared the marriage dissolved with costs of the application against the co-respondent Darley. William McMillan⁵