In a courtroom drama that unfolded today at the Probate and Matrimonial Division, Mr Justice Madden presided over the case of Finn v. Finn. The petitioner, Mrs. Catherine Finn, hailing from Clarina, Co. Limerick, sought alimony pendente lite as part of her quest for a divorce a mensa et thora from her husband, Mr Bartholomew Finn, a pensioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The grounds for the divorce claim rested on allegations of cruelty, vehemently denied by the respondent.
The courtroom, filled with anticipation, witnessed legal representatives making their case for and against the application. Mr Phelps, representing Mrs. Finn and instructed by Messrs. J. H. Moran and Son, passionately argued for alimony to be fixed at 10s. per week. The crux of the matter lay in the financial standing of Mr Bartholomew Finn, with the petitioner asserting that her husband derived a profit of £25 a year from his business, received a pension of £54 annually from the R.I.C., and garnered dividends amounting to £11 per year from the Dunlop Company.
In an intriguing twist, Mr Phelps painted a comprehensive financial picture of Mr Finn, asserting that he held a substantial sum exceeding £100 in the Post Office Savings Bank. The petitioner, Mrs. Finn, in her affidavit, contended that she had £200 in her name in the same savings bank, funds given to her by her husband over time. She also highlighted her entitlement to life insurance benefits upon her husband’s demise and a sum of money from the Constabulary Force Fund.
However, the respondent, in a staunch rebuttal through an answering affidavit, presented a different narrative. Mr Bartholomew Finn argued that the profits from his business were modest, not exceeding fourpence a day. He emphasized his pension and dividends from the Dunlop Company, providing a detailed breakdown of his financial assets, including £32 16s. 5d in the Post Office Savings Bank. The respondent went on to disclose that the petitioner had a separate Post Office savings bank deposit of £5, significantly lower than her earlier claim.
The courtroom tension escalated as both sides presented their versions of the financial landscape. Counsel for Mrs. Finn asserted that her husband had underestimated the profits from his business, challenging the accuracy of his financial disclosures. The petitioner’s legal team contended that compelling her to draw on the savings bank deposit would be inequitable.
Mr R. Sheehy, representing Mr Finn and instructed by Mr P. J. O’Sullivan, argued against the alimony application. He brought attention to the longevity of the marriage, which began in 1884, and argued that Mrs. Finn currently possessed sufficient means to sustain herself until the court adjudicated on the divorce suit.
After careful consideration, Mr Justice Madden rendered a decisive order. The respondent, Mr Bartholomew Finn, was directed to pay the petitioner, Mrs. Catherine Finn, 7s. 6d. per week pending the resolution of the legal proceedings.
The Limerick matrimonial case has captured the public’s attention, shedding light on the complexities of alimony disputes and the intricacies of marital finances. As the legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen how the court will navigate the conflicting narratives and deliver justice in this emotionally charged case.
Evening Herald (Dublin) – Friday 06 February 1914
