We all know Old MacDonald had a farm. And we all know that on his farm, he had an assortment of animals, including chickens, horses and ducks. But little is known about his wife, Edna.

Unfortunately, Old MacDonald did not have a happy marriage. Edna actually instituted a divorce action against him, making various claims for corollary relief. I recently came across this information quite by chance after stumbling upon the case of MacDonald v. MacDonald, reported in the NLR, to wit the Nursery Law Reports. I thought it useful to post the decision.

Barns J.

This is an action for divorce commenced by Edna MacDonald, against her husband, Old. The parties separated after a lengthy marriage, and Edna petitions this court of the County of Mother Goose for an order dissolving the marriage and other relief.

Divorce

Edna seeks a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. She claims Old is constantly going around singing that he has a farm, and on his farm, he a number of animals, including but not limited to a horse, a cow and a pig. After calling out each animal, he then shouts, loudly, “E-I-E-I-O.”

She claims this is driving her crazy. She alleges that Old even sings in his sleep, thereby keeping her awake. She cannot readily fall asleep again even after counting sheep. For that matter, Old laughs off her complaints adding, “Oh, yes, sweetie, I also own those sheep. A baa baa here, a baa baa there; here a baa, there a baa, everywhere a baa, baa.”

Edna claims that as a result of her husband’s conduct, she has been getting treatment for anxiety from a psychiatrist, one Dr. Holstein. Counsel for Edna filed a report from the good doctor, who concluded that being exposed to a frequent barrage of E-I-E-I-Os can be hazardous to one’s health. He urged her to leave the matrimonial home and move to a greener pasture.

I find that the respondent Old has created a situation whereby due to Old’s deliberate actions, continuing the marriage is untenable, and accordingly, Edna has made out a case for a divorce on the cruelty ground. This case is similar to the high court involving Mary and her little lamb.

In that action, Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow and which followed her everywhere she went. She married one Walter. The marriage did not last too long as Walter claimed he was getting virtually no privacy. The little lamb even followed Mary on their honeymoon. Arguments ensued even though Mary ensured the little lamb, known as Wooly, would sleep on the sofa. I find that the lamb case and the case at bar are on all fours.

Property

Old MacDonald claims he wants a reasonable property division, but he does not want to give up the family farm. The parties mistrust one another. Edna in fact sought and obtained an interlocutory restraining order preventing Old from dissipating assets. She got suspicious after he sneaked off recently taking a little piggy to the market, selling it and losing the proceeds in a game of horseshoes.

The court ordered that Old ensures the other piggies stay home. Old tried to hide another piggy under his coat, but Edna heard it as it screamed, “Wee, wee, wee.”

Edna also alleges that Old has an interest in a wheat farm outside of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Old responds vociferously that the farm is and always belonged to his cousin Orville. He says his wife is delusional, mad and a few bushels short of a silo.

I find insufficient evidence supporting Edna’s allegations about the wheat farm. Orville did, however, testify in cross-examination, noting that a John Deere turbo combine harvest machine on his farm was there on loan from Old MacDonald. I find that Edna is therefore entitled to a share in its value.

Child custody

The parties each seek sole custody of their 14-year-old daughter, Clementine. Edna relies on the case of Re: Farmer in the Dell. In that case, the court noted:

Hi-ho, the derry-o
The farmer takes a wife
The wife takes the child
The wife takes the child
Hi-ho, the derry-o
The wife takes the child

There is, however, a problem with this decision. The narrative continues on with:

The child takes the nurse
The nurse takes the cow
The cow takes the dog
Who in turn takes the cat
Who takes the mouse
Which takes the cheese
Which stands alone

What troubles me and what the court in Re: Farmer in the Dell did not decide upon is that all these actions in series contravene the Farmer’s Perpetuities Act. It all has to stop well before we get to the poor unwanted cheese that nobody wishes to take.

Given that Clementine is the farmer’s daughter, of both parents, I order that there be joint custody.

Judgement accordingly.

I also thank both counsel for their most able presentation, including assisting me in spelling Saskatchewan.

Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue his humor writing and speaking passions. His latest book is First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe. Visit MarcelsHumour.com, and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”