Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Parent and Child Subject_2 Husband and Wife Subject_3 Access to Child Subject_4 Divorce for Adultery — Discretion of Husband to Regulate Access to Child by Divorced Wife — Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 (49 and 50 Vict. cap 27). Facts: “In Scotland the law is settled by the case of Bowman ( Bowman v. Graham , July 17, 1883, 10 R. 1234 , 20 S.L.R. 816 ), which had reference to a case of access alone, that where the wife has been divorced for adultery the matter of access to the children ought in general to be left in the husband's hands.”
Circumstances in which the Court refused to interfere with the discretion of the husband, a Scotsman, in declining to allow his divorced wife, resident in America, access in this country to the only son of the marriage.
On December 13, 1907, Mrs Suzanne Van Valkenburg or Hamilton or Ziegler, wife of Edward Ziegler, journalist, New York City, U.S.A., and at one time the wife of James Neilson Hamilton, merchant, of Hamilton von Glehn & Company, Limited, London, E.C., presented a petition in which she craved the Court to find that she was entitled to free access at all reasonable times to James Hamilton, the only son of her marriage with Hamilton.
The respondent denied the petitioner's general averments, and explained his absences and his having left the son with Mrs Peirce to his having had to go on business and remain at Bussorah in Arabia. He averred that the petitioner had never cared for or taken any interest in the son, and that the petition was presented in the interest of Mrs Peirce, who was anxious for his custody, but under whose influence, Page: 526 ↓
The respondent argued—Where a wife has been divorced for adultery the rule of law both before and after the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 was, that unless in exceptional circumstances the husband had an absolute discretion as to his wife's access to the children— Bowman v. Graham ( cit. sup. ); Handley v. Handley ( cit. sup. ): Bent v. Bent , 1861, 30 L. J. P. 175 ; Clout v. Clout , 1861, 30 L.J., P. 176 . Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 did not apply to cases where there had been divorce, Page: 527 ↓
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.