Percival Anderson Fenton

FENTON V FENTON
On the ground of desertion, Lucy Campbell Fenton (37) petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Percival Anderson Fenton (40), farmer, coach proprietor and horse dealer, alleging that he had deserted her. The parties were married at Swan Hill on 5th March, 1884, and five children had resulted from the union. Mr Woolf (instructed by Mr Grant) represented petitioner, who appeared in court in the garb of a member of the Salvation Army. She stated that after the marriage she and her husband lived at Swan Hill. In December, 1893, respondent induced her to sign certain documents, the purport of which she did not then know. She did not ascertain the meaning of the documents until March, 1894, when she received a letter demanding payment of the amount of a mortgage which had been raised on certain land belonging to her. She found out also that her husband was being pressed by creditors. He went to Melbourne and she followed him. He promised to meet her and talk over matters, but failed to keep to his undertaking, and she went back to Swan Hill. In August, 1894, petitioner issued a warrant for her husband's arrest for deserting his wife and children. He returned to Swan Hill unexpectedly in September of that year. She told him of the warrant and he said, 'Go through with it, and I promise you it will be the worst day's work ever you did.' Respondent said he would go to Western Australia, and would send for his wife, and on these representations she cancelled the warrant. After staying in Swan Hill, Fenton left the town. He wrote to his wife from Melbourne four times, in the last letter mentioning that he was going away. She heard nothing from or of him until March, 1897, and in August of the same year she had him arrested at Walhalla. He was ordered to contribute 5/- a week towards the support of his wife, and 19/- a week towards that of his children. He was in gaol until he got sureties, and after his release he left Swan Hill. She had a letter from him on 14th September, 1897, in which he said he was quite prepared to help his wife and children if given time to get work. She replied, but did not hear from respondent again. She had not since seen her husband, and did not know where he was.

The Chief Justice said this appeared to be one of those cases in which the temptation of the law was too strong for selfish, weak people. It was impossible not to observe that the act, with all its great advantages, was a dreadful temptation to the weak and vicious, who were willing to resort to all the villainy of cruelly treating their wives and children because they knew they could escape all consequences and regain their freedom. The decree nisi was granted, with costs.⁹