The Court Case Continued

The Bishop v Bishop divorce case received coverage in the local newspapers of the time, although because of the 'sensitive' nature of the case, details were not specified beyond vague suggestion.
In September of 1874, after the case was over,Frederick Moule, an attourney who had dealings with both parties, was called before the Supreme Court to answer 'certain statements' in an affidavit put forward by Fanny Jane Smith. The Melbourne Argus, in its report of the ensuing events, provided an excellent summary of the proceedings of the divorce case, so I will make use of it in my coverage of same...

The applicant, Miss Smith, was married in March 1864 to Joseph Bishop. In contemplation of the marriage, a deed of settlement was executed by Jospeh Bishop in her favour.Mr. Moule, acting under the directions of the trustees of the settlement, received the income derived from the investments of the property conveyed by the settlement, and at intervals of about six months Fanny Bishop received from Mr.oule the proceeds of the income, minus his commission.

In 1870, in consequence of her ill health, she seperated from her husband, and various proposals about a deed of seperation were made on her behalf by Mr Moule to Mr. Bishop.
In July of 1870, a deed of seperation was at last prepared by Mr. Moule.Accompanying the Deed was the following letter from Mr Moule to Mrs Bishop:-
" I send your part of the deed of seperation as requested.The charges against you amount to ten pounds ten shillings."

In January of 1871, Fanny Bishop called upon Frederick Moule and asked him whether he still acted for Joseph Bishop, to which he replied "No- since the deed of seperation had been signed, Bishop and myself have passed eachother in the street."
Fanny then requested Frederick Moule to inform her what were the general laws relating to divorce, and if she were to go ahead with proceedings would they be heard privately? Mr. Moule's reply was "No...not unless Mr Bishop was bribed not to appear, in which case the Crown would defend."
He further advised Fanny not to have an interview with her husband, as that would be viewed as collusion, but if it were done through a third person, and she could allow her conscience to make an affidavit to the effect that there would be no collusion; and considering that it would only concern themselves, there was no great crime or harm. He further said that collusion of that kind was quite different to swearing another's reputation away, or injuring anyone personally by doing so. At this time, Fanny Bishop was not aware that she had the grounds for divorce on which she ultimately succeeded.
Some time after this Frederick Moule told Fanny Bishop that her husband was willing to "go away" for three hundred pounds.Some time after this, Moule then informed Fanny that she must get herself a stranger to act as her proctor, as he was again on friendly terms with Joseph Bishop. He further stated that as he had acted as her solicitor in money matters,and had been solicitor to the firm of Bishop and Keep, he would prefer not to act for Fanny in divorce proceedings, although he would give the matter consideration.
A few days later Fanny Bishop called on frederick Moule, and he told her that he did not think that she had a case, and declined to act on her behalf. He added that Joseph Bishop now seemed unwilling to accept any proposal made to him as a settlement.
Some days later, Fanny called on Mr. Moule and he lent her the work called "McKean On Divorce". When she returned it to him,they had a conversation on the laws of divorce, and he told her that she seemed to be well up on the subject, and knew more about it than he did.
In her affidavit, Fanny stated that there was no mention of friendship between herself and Frederick Moule, and that as far as she was concerned he was acting as her solicitor and in no other capacity, as she at that time had no other solicitor acting for her.

During the divorce hearing, Frederick Moule was called as a witness on behalf of Joseph Bishop, and the petitoner's counsel objected, stating that any communications between Fanny and Frederick were priviledged. This objection was overruled, and Frederick gave the following evidence:
"I do not remember whether I acted for Mrs Bishop since the speration. I have given legal advice as a friend to Mrs Bishop.I did not refuse to act for her until she disclosed what she wished me to do.She did not consult me on professional matters. She asked me to act for her as to divorce.I refused to act for either party. Mrs Bishop used to come on friendly terms to me about rents. I bore a message from her to the respondent. This was after the seperation, and after I had told her that I would not act for her or Mr. Bishop. The message was "If Mr. Bishop would consent to a divorce for adultery, cruelty and desertion, or not appear, I will allow him one hundred pounds a year, or make some division of the capital." I said "That cannot be done unless you perjure yourself. You have to swear in your affidavit that there was no collusion between you and him." She meant the seperation by the desertion. I told her I did not think the seperation was a ground.She said she would consult her solicitor. She begged me to see Mr. Bishop. At another interview she asked me to make another proposal to Mr. Bishop on other grounds, which I don't feel at liberty to mention.I said I would try the second proposition.When Mr. Bishop heard the grounds of divorce, he refused altogether. I told Mr. Bishop all this as I was told by Mrs. Bishop to tell him."