SHE TOOK SUPPER TO HIS ROOM

Never Threatened

"I Knew Something "

Did Not Linger

Judge's Comment

Elderly Swain Denies Wrongful Association With Mrs. de Montalk, but The Sons Had The Wood On Father NOCTURNAL LOVE-MAKING WITH. HOUSEKEEPER (From*"N.Z. Truth's "Special Wellington Representative) As a small dairy farmer and piirveyor of milk m Christchurch, William James Wills of necessity retired with the departing, day and rose with the dawn. Living apart from his wife Wills secured the services of housekeepers to look after his material requirements, but between the dark and the daylight he so far forgot his marriage vows as to commit misconduct with one of the women whom he employed. Strained relations between Wills and his wife, Alice Rose Wills,, caused the latter m 1924 to come to Wellington to live. The intervening years did not improve matters or help to bring the estranged couple together. Instead, the man entered upon a liaison which ultimately brought him to the divorce court:

A FEW days ago m Wellington, Mrsl Wills brought her action for dissolution, of her marriage before Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury of twelve. Wills's infidelity to her, m that he had misconducted himself with his housekeepers, was the theriie of her complaint. After, a retirement of tome fortyfive minutes the jury, by a three-fifths majority, found that Wills had misconducted'himself with Lilian De Montalk, one of the women named m the petition. Married to Wills m Christchurch nearly thirty-four years ago, Mrs. Wills, under the guidance of her counsel, Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, told the court she had borne her husband eight children, two of whom were deceased. Both her daughters and one .of he.r sons were married, while the youhgost boy, aged nine, was living with her at Eastbourne. For six months prior to her coming to Wellington m 1924 the relationship, between her and Wills was strained. He was not providing for her, but she had a pension m respect of the boy killed at the war. Wills, who gave his occupation as that of an engineer, at the time his wife left Christchurch, was running a small dairy farm near Spreydon. Explaining her straitened financial circumstances, Mrs. Wills said she had to go out washing, cooking and scrubbing, but sometimes she was too ill to do anything. „ Towards the end of 1927, said Mrs. Wills, she was visited by her sons — James and Hugh. It 'was from them she learned of what was transpiring between her husband and Mrs. De Montalk. In December, of the. same year the present proceedings were commenced.

In answer to Mr. Twyneham, Mrs. Wfals said her husband had never threatened to take,, divorce proceedings against her or complained about tier conduct with a man named *Da\vson some fourteen years ago. "I have had two children since then," said Mrs. Wills. "There were no other men. This old trouble was held over my head and he thought he could do as he liked, but he could not have divorced me m 1914." "I have not sued him In the courts for maintenance," she went on, "but I don't see that there is any use my living here and he living down there with that woman. y •Edith Rose Davey, a young married daughter of the petitioner, told her mother's counsel what she knew relevant to her father's friendship with Mrs. Jarden, the other woman with whom the respondent -was alleged to have committed misconduct. In March of last year, said Mrs. Davey, she saw her. father at the railway station. He was catching the train to Auckland, and had In his company a young woman whom he introduced as Mrs. Jarden. The testimony which branded . Wills as a breaker of the Seventh Commandment, i however, came from his sons. The evidence of two — James and Wilfred — was taken on commission m Christchurch, while the third son, Hugh, told the court what he knew from the witness-box m Wellington. In the course of his evidence, taken m Christchurch, . James, the married son, said he lived almost opposite his father, who resided at S6 Tankerville Street, Spreyclon. He used to visit him until 1927. "I remember my father getting a housekeeper m 1926," he said.

"Her name was Lily De Montalk. At that time there were father and my two brothers, Hugh and WllCrod, living m the house. Mrs. De Montalk was a married woman, at that time living apart from her husband as far as I know. I knew . something of her character." At this juncture further questions as to Mrs. De. Montalk's character were objected to by Mr. Twj'neham. Continuing: his testimony. James said his father was very friendly with' the woman. They used to go out together, to theatres, pictures and .. picnics, m "Wills's car and very often liy themselves. "My father and' Mrs. De Montalk were often alone. in the house together," said James Wills. "During the building of my house m September, 1926, I stored my furniture at my father's place. Some of it was m the shed at the back and some m the house m Mrs. De Montalk's room. "I remember going to the house about the second week m October, 1926." he said. "Glancing towards my father's window I looked m. This was made possible on account of the blind not being right down. I saw father", m bed and Mrs. De Montalk sitting ■' on the side of it. When I returned past my father's room the :light was out." Just before Christmas, 1927, he had discussed the case with his father who wanted to quash it. It was- arranged that all the sons; should meet their father, and talk the matter over. . At this "meeting Wills senior requested his sons not to give evidence against him and said he had "been a fool and was a gone coon" if the case was heard. He then explained the attempts that had been made towards a settlement and with a view to the future maintenance of their mother.

Some time after this he was returning home late one evening and saw his father sitting m the car with Mrs. Dolly Jarden m the garage. The car had been out that evening. His father and Mrs. Jarden remained there some time. Wills then went on to explain how he obtained a view of his father's -residence from certain windows of his own house. On one occasion he thought he remembered seeing Mrs. De Montalk having a row with her husband outside his place. He had not described either Mrs. De Montalk or Mrs. Jarden as women of loose morals, but he did say to his father he thought that Mrs. Jarden appeared to him to be so. Questioned by counsel concerning this point, Wills 'stated that his father and Mrs. Jarden spoke to him. He had not admitted to the woman they might have , been m the car less than five minutes. Mr. Twyneham: Did you admit that she might have had a child on 1 her lap? — No. As far as I remember this was not put to me at the time.-. "If- I can remember aright," Mrs. Jarden said to Wills: 'That was the night you were a bit tiddley and that accounted for us stopping m the car for some, time.' "

After that his father was on friendly terms with Mrs. De Montalk and they were often m one another's rooms together. He then went on to relate what he knew about his father and Mrs. De Montalk going 'about together. The latter left the house some time about Christmas of 1926, and some time later Mrs. Jarden was engaged as a housekeeper. In answer to Mr. Twyneham, witness said his father occupied the front room of the house and the housekeeper the next one. Mr. Twyneham: Are you a teetotaller? — I am next door to it, ' Would you deny that you were drunk on many occasions when you were living m the house? — Yes. I have not been drunk m the house. "I was certainly not drunk m October, 1926 when I came home at 11 o'clock," said Wilfred, "and. Hugh was absolutely sober, when he came m." Have you ever been m Mrs. De Montalk's room? — No, not when she was there. Has she never taken supper- m to you? — No, I had my supper m the kitchen. I have seen her taking supper m to my father. Hugh Rogers Wills, who was by his mother's side during her trying ordeal m Wellington, under examination by iiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiuiiiuuiniiiiiuiiuiuiiiiutiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiii '

' He did not make a proper apology to Mrs. Jarden for what he said, although he may have told her that perhaps he was mistaken. Counsel: There was no secret about gping out m the car? — No, if was done quite openly. Father said he was having a good time. He openly boasted he was having a good time with Mrs. De Montaik. Wilfred Cyril Walls, another son of respondent . related what 'lie saw one night m October, 1926.. There was undue familiarity between his father and Mrs. De Montalk. Arriving home about 11 o'clock one 'evening arid going straight to his room he' heard voices which he recognized as his fathers and Mrs. De Mohtalk's m the one adjoining. They were talking quietly together. • . "I then went into the kitchen to get some supper," said the young man, and waited for my brother to come m. While m the kitchen I heard my fattier' 1 and Mrs. De Montalk come out of her room and go into his room. My brother, Hugh, came m a few minutes after midnight and I then discussed the matter with him. "I went to my room after being m the kitchen, and it was then that I heard the door of the room adjoining mine open and shut. This was Mrs. De Montalk's room." . . The lights were all on, continued Wills, and his father came .up the passage scantily attired, enpouhterjipg Hugh just outside the ..■•..' kitchen door. . "They had words and my brother wanted to ' know what he went round the house dressed like that for.' Father said he would please himself as he was boss of the house." ■ '

Mr. Mazengarb, related the incidents which finally led up to the present proceedings. His father had a dairy farm and milk round and Mrs. De Montalk was a customer of his. He remembered his father saying she was coming to keep house for him some time m 1926. They were always out together after that, sometimes four .and five nights a week. He remembered the incident m October when he came home and found his brother, Wilfred Wills, waiting, up for him. "I went into the hall and stood' behind the door," he said. "I saw father come out of his room with Mrs. De Montalk and kiss her. She then came down the passage and I walked out. Father was scantily attirecVand was making- for the kitchen. Mrs. De Montalk was also scantily attired. ■ His father,, the following morning, placed the same injunction on him as he had on his brother— namely, that if he opened his mouth he would be cut out of the will and also kicked out of the house. . . ' Mrs. De Montalk left the house during the summer when he was away m Auckland. He knew that she divorced her husband some time m 1927. When Mrs. Jarden came to the place the same year, she became on friendly terms with his father' and used to go about with him. v On the occasions when they were out in 'the'" car* and upon theic return they would stay out m the garage longer than necessary. In 1927 he came to Wellington with his eldest brother. His mother was ill at the time, and he told her of the events that had taken place m the home m Christchurch. , ; "When I returned home I continued

'to live with father," he went on, "but when the petition was served there was trouble. He told me I was not to be a witness m the case and called me some hard names." " • Concerning: Mrs. Jarden, Hugh Wills said he had never seen her out with his father at theatres or picnics, but just m the car. In a complete denial of the allegations brought forward by his wife, William James Wills said he remembered the occasion when his wife left him. She had not been gone more than a few days when it became the general talk that she had left /him for good. Ultimately, Mrs. De Montalk, a young woman, was engaged on the recommendation of 'his next door neighbor. ■ "Mrs. De Montalk was with me three or four months," said Wills senior, "and her T^usband carrie to see her three or four times each week. Mrs. De Montalk used to call me Mr. Wills and I called her' 'Lil' as the boys did." He was on friendly terms with the woman and had taken her out m his car sometimes, but there was never anything improper m their relations. "Eight or nine o'clock are my usual retiring hours," Wills said m answer to his counsel. ■ "Mrs. De Montalk would bring mo m supper if she Avere the last to retire." Explaining the occurrence which occurred m October, 1926, and related by his sons, Wills said the boys came home creating a disturbance. He went out to remonstrate with one and was no sooner back m his room again than the other boy cam© m. He went out to this one also. The boys were always coming m late; and making a noise. Sometimes they were under the influence of liquor. Concerning his trip to Auckland with Mrs. Jarden, Wills said his housekeep-

er paid her own fare. She was on her way to Thames. to see an uncle of hers: It was a falsehood to suggest that he lingered m the garage at ; home with either of the women. Both had young children and sometimes they may have been asleep; The only time that elapsed was m locking up the garage and carrying the children m. He never told. the boys he "was a gone coon" if they told what they had seen. "I have never committed an indiscretion with either of the women," said Wills further to this question. "The children have been educated by my wife ever since they were young to hate me like poison." » To Mr. Mazengarb, Wills said he. did ask his wife to return- to him. Concerning the night m October, he heard Mrs. De Montalk talking- to her child prior to him going out to speak to the youngest boy. To his way of thinking everything the boys had said was a concoction and that they had invented the story. • In the course of her evidence tended to the court Mrs. Lily De Montalk' admitted she divorced her husband towards the end of 1927. From August to the end of 1926 she was housekeeping for Wills. "Hugh made improper suggestions to me often," she said, "and moped round the house when I wouldn't speak to him. Sometimes he was under the influence of liquor. "When the "boys came home they usually made a noise' and woke the b.aby. I frequently complained about this," she went on. She emphatically denied the assertion that she had misconducted herself with Wills. To Mr. Mazengarb, Mrs. De Montalk said she heard Wills speak to the boys

m October, 1926, about making a noise when coming m. "I did not hear him threaten to cut them out of his will, though," . she said. Dorothy Alexander Jarden, the woman who is still keeping house for Wills, m answer to Mr. Twyneham, said the only occasions she went out with her, employer was when shopping was required. ; "Mother suggested that I should take the trip to Auckland," said Mrs. Jarden. "I paid my own expenses." There had been no impropriety between her and Wills. Mr. Mazengarb wanted to know why her mother should write to her as "Miss Peat" care of Wills' place, but Mrs. Jarden said she had never gone under an assumed name. She was still married. Questioned about her delay m the garage with VV'"s, Mrs. Jarden waxed vehement: "James is a champion liar if he says we stayed m the garage a long time ... There was nothing I was ashamed of, and at the time I went to Auckland I ,d.id not think there was any harm m it." After both counsel had addressed the jury, his honor m the course of his summing up, said it appeared to him that Wills did not hesitate to throw dirt at his children and had even dragged up an old score against his wife. It was for the jury to say whether the boys were telling the truth or not. When the jury returned with the intimation that Wills had committed misconduct with Mrs. De Montalk m 1926, Ma\ Mazengarb formally moved for a decree nisi. -This his: honor granted, with the usual stipulation that it be moved absolute at the expiration of three calendar months.