THE DIVORCE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 151, 27 June 1888, Page 5

THE DIVORCE COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) Johx David McLean (petitioner) v. Eliza" jeth Gardner McLean (respondent) and J-rederick Iredale (co-respondent).— This ff as a petition from New Plymouth to have adecreemVJmadeabsolute. —Mr E. Hesketh stated that this application was deferred from the last session, pending decision of the Court of Appeal. The appeal had been dismissed, and there now being no obstacle in the way of a decree absolute, he moved, " That the same be granted, with costs, against the-co-respon-dent. "—His Honor said tne appeal having been dismissed, and the necessary time having elapsed, and there being no response in the matter, the petitioner was entitled to a decree absolute, with costs against the co-respondent. HoMriißE*s v. Humphreys.—This was an action for dissoiuiion of marriage by Thomas Mace James Humphreys (petitioner), the respondent being Rosina Ann Humphreys, and the co-respondents John Kerr, Frank Matson, and Charles Fuller. — No-application had been entered by the respondent or co-respondents.—Mr H. Campbell appeared on behalf of the petitioner.— Thomas James Mace Humphreys '(petitioner) deposed that he was married to the respondent on October 12th, 1569, in the Parish Church, Dublin, his baptismal name being Thomas James Mace. He took the additional surname of Humphreys in 1881. He was a little over 20 when he married, and his wife was 17. After marriage, they lived and cohabited for seven years in. Dublin, where he held an appointment in the Paymaster-General's office. From Publin he went to Cambridge, lived and cohabited with his wife there until 1881, then took his degree of 8.A., and took holy orders in the Reformed Episcopal Church. As soon as ordained, he was appointed to the charge of a church at Lemington, where he lived and cohabited with his wile till June, 1883. Then he left the old country with his Wife and family on the ship Hermione. There were three children, the* issue of his marriage, aged respectively 17, 15, and 10 years. They left England on account of his eldest daughter having developed strong symptoms of consumption, early in June, 1885. They arrived at Auckland on October lfltb, 1883. The co-respondent John Kerr was chief officer of the Hermione, and Frank Matson was a. saloon passenger. These, corespondents belonged to the- same set on board ship as witness and his \Vife. Witness acted as chaplain, and the largest cabin in the saloon was al'otted to him. He was a blue-ribbon man, but the respondent was in the habit of taking stimulants under the plea that they were necessary for health. The second' saloon passengers were allowed a certain quantity of liquor. During the voyage some cargo was broached, and the captain gave strict orders that none of the crew were to receive liquor.' The captain discovered witness's daughter Daisy taking a bottle of stout to the cook, and consequently prohibited any of the second cabin passengers from receiving supplies of drink during the voyage. He believed the respondent still obtained drink, but he could not swear so. They went to the Star Hotel on the loth of October, and stayed there four days. A dinner party was given them by Messrs Steam and Matson on the evening of October 19th. Witness and the co-respon-dent, Kerr, were also prssent. On the morning of the 19th or 20th, he awoke, and found Mrs Humphreys was not in bsd. He waited for some time, .and finding she did not return, assumed she had gone to the bath-room. Not finding her there, he asked Mr Steam, whom he met hi the passage, if he had seen anything of Mra Humphreys. He replied that he had not, said want with witness to Mr Matson's room. Witness knocked at .Matson's door, and the door was opened by Mrs Humphreys. He asked her "what was the meaning of this 1" and she replied that "she just looked in to see how Mr Matson was, as he was ill last night." Witness iaw on Mr Matson's bed a blue girdle, irhich he recognised as the girdle of Mrs Humphreys' dressing gown. He told her at once to go to her bedroom. He also asked Mr Matson what was the meaning of this, and he replied that he didn't know, because, he had just woke up. It was at Mr Steam's suggestion that he knocked at Matson's door. Witness had words with. Mrs Humphreys. She went down on her knees and assured him that there was nothing wrong between her and Mr Matson. \Vitness soon after went on the wharf with Mr Steam, and he succeeded in calming witness. Subsequently both Mr Matson and Mrs Humphreys assured him upon their word of honour . that nothing Criminal had/happened, and he (witBess) was satisfied. He was so.satisfied that he had forgotten the matter until a fehort'time ago, when it was brought back to his recollection. After leaving the Star Jlotel,' about October 20th or 21st, ,they Went to Gothic House, Grey-street, and remained there three weeks. Mrs Drysdale was the landlady. Of' that time he was at Whangarei for a week, looking after the head-mastership of .the High School there, which was vacant. The co-respondents, Kerr and Matson, visiteo! at Gothic House daring the three weeks. From Gothic House they went to a house on Manukau Koad, Newmarket. Witness was then teaching at Newton East public school. His wife cohabited with him until June 4th, 1885. Then she received a letter, Announcing, that her father was seriously ill, and desired to see. her. With the consent; pf- witness, she left for Home with two. 'children on the 4th June, 1885. One of the children had been previously left at Home with an aunt-. His wife went Home on the steamer Tongariro, and Mr Chas. White, who was attached to witness's daughter, went Home with her. At that time he was largely interested in mines at the Upper Thames, and he arranged to cable .home for his wife to return when these ventures proved to be successful. "The' operations, however, were not successful, and he was not able to send for his wife and family, bub tie had sent remittances during her absence. When he found his mining operations were unsuccessful he determined to pursue the study of law. After being admitted to practice, he practised, lor twelve months at the Thames. He had arranged with Captain Taylor to bring ■ his wife and family out in the Rangitikei, leaving London in July. At the end of last year, he learned from Mr White* the facts which caused him to take Proceedings in this case. He only heard part •from Mr White, and it took him some time to find out the other. Witness had known his wife's knee-cap to slip off, and she usually fainted on such occasions. She had had a very serious fall'at Cambridge;--In answer to flis Honor witness said that there was nothing whatever of his own knowledge;' "except the finding of his wife in Matson's room, in proof of her infidelity. — frank Steam deposed that he was a settler "'ing at Kaipara. He became acquainted With the petitioner and respondent on the fip Hermione- during the voyage from «>ndon to Auckland in 1883. -The coi&bndents.: John Kerr and-Frank Matson "Wf not- display any intimacy with $*■■■, respondent during that voyage Particularly marked. He remembered that °n one occasion the supply of liquor to second-class passengers was stopped, and Mrs Humphreys asked him to get -some' "quor for her. Mr Matson had also asked Witness to take liquor to Mrs Humphreys, "itness remembered being at a dinner P^y at-the Star Hotel, at which thePetitioner'and respondents, John Kerr.and Matson were present. That was about October 19th. After the ladies left the «}on»r table the gentlemen remained ;be-: waa with the exception of Mr Kern Soon

after witness had some conversation with .Kerr m the cabin of the Hermione, and Kerr stated that he had been with Mrs Humphreys the mght before. Kerr also stated that Mrs Humphreys had had a mishap and put her knee-cap out of joint. Mr Sandeman (thirdmate") and Mr White were present at the conversation. Witness remembered meeting Mr Humphreys in the passage of the Star Hotel, looking for his wife about 8 o'clock in the morning. Mr Humphreys said, " Have you seen my wife ?" and witness replied that he had seen nothing of her. He wa3 goinoto see Matson, and Mr Humphreys accompanied him. Mr Matson's door was locked and Mr Humphreys said "Alatson, open the door." In a minute or two the door was opened, and to his surprise Mrs Humphreys came out. Mr Humphreys expressed astonishment, and asked her what it meant. Mrs Humphreys was in her dressing gown, and Mr Humphreys ordered her to go to her bedroom. After she left Mr Humphreys took a girdle from Matson's bed. Matson said to witness, " For God's cake try and make this right." Witness went for a walk with Mr Humphreys to talk the matter over. After leaving the hotel witness and Mr Matson took lodgings in Grey-street. On several occasions Mrs Humphreys daughterbrought letters addressed to Mr Matson. Witness refused to deliver the letter, and Mrs Humphreys came herself. He told Mrs Humphreys she ought to be ashamed of herself. _ Mr Matson and Mrs Humphreys then went into the drawing-room alone, and the door was fastened. Mr Humphreys was absent from Auckland at this time. Witness had seen Matson leave drink at Mrs Humphreys door. Matson had acknowledged to witness that he had had improper relations with Mrs Humphreys.—Jessie Drysdale deposed that in 1883 she kept a boarding-house at the top of Grey-street, where Mr and Mrs Humphreys came to board in October, 1883. Mrs Humphreys came about 8 o'clock in the evening with Mr Mat9on, and they went upstairs. She said • the gentleman wanted to move one of her boxes, and get something. They stayed- for nearly an hour, during which witness tried the door and found it locked. Witness afterwards told Mrs Humphreys that it was very strange, and Mrs Humphreys replied that the gentleman had had a very bad fit. While Mrs Humphreys was at witness's house, Mr Matson called several times, whon Mr Humphreys was away. In answer to His Honor, witness said that on one or two occasions Matson called when Mr Humphreys was in.— Charles Griffiths White deposed that he knew all the parties in.' this cause. He was an apprentice on board the Hermione in July, 1883. He remembered a conversation between Jno. Kerr at which Mr Steam was present. He corroborated the evidence given by Mr Steam as to what took place on that Occasion. Witness was a passenger by the Tongariro to London, and sailed from Wellington on June 7th, 1885. The respondent and . two children were fellow passengers, witness being attached to the eldest daughter. . There was a passenger on the Tongariro named Charles Fuller, who became very intimate indeed with the respondent. They were quite together the whole of the voyage. When the ship arrived at London the respondent and her children went to her father's house, and were comfortably and properly lodged. Witness visited twice or thrice a week, and saw.1 the co-respondent Charles Fuller nearly always there. The co - respondent and Mrs Humphreys seemed to be very fond of each other, but witness saw no impropriety. Mrs Humphreys had shown witness a photograph of Charles Fuller, contained in a letter, and on the photograph he saw "My darling " written. Mrs Humphreys and Fuller were frequently alone. Witness continued to visit for about six or eight months, and the intimacy between Fuller and Mrs Humphreys continued during that time. Witness discontinued his visits in consequence. —By His Honor : During all this time he had observed acts of familiarity, but not of impropriety. He had heard them calling each other " Darling " and that sort of thing."— Examination continued: Mrs Humphreys used to ask the children to leave the house ,leaving Fuller and Mrs Humphreys together. Witness returned to Auckland about' the end of last year, and communicated to Mr Humphreys the facts just stated. Mr Humphreys said that he had some previous knowledge, and he would take proceedings. Witness had opportunities of seeing Mr and Mrs Humphreys together, and lived with them at Remeura. Mr Humphreys was very kindindeed.—Mr Campbell stated that allegationsas to what took place at-Manukau Road, Parnell, were in the petition before the death of Mr Lock. Mr Campbell then stated the facts upon which he relied in support of the petition.— His Honor said that he saw some difficulty in dealing with the. petition. So far as Fuller was concerned it rested solely upon the evidence of White, and there was nothing in his evidence to justify him in saying that there was evidence of an adultrous' intercourse with Fuller. The fact that Fuller and Mrs Humphreys were much together on board the steamer is no proof of improper intercourse. It was very usual for fellow passengers to get intimate and call upon each other after they landed. White admitted that he saw nothing improper in their conduct.: He said that he saw familiarity, but that did not imply criminality. Then the other evidence could not go to cumulate o.n this case because the co-respondent was a different person. As to the first occasion of alleged adultery at the hotel, the respondent having been in Matson's bedroom, that he should have held-ifithad been relied upon—to have been evidence of adultery, but that, of course, the petitioner had admitted that he condoned, knowing the facts as he knows them now. Therefore, it could not be taken into account. [Mr Campbell remarked that there was subsequent- misconduct] The question Was whether there was such Subsequent misconduct proved. As to Kerr there was no evidence against . Mrs Humphreys. Kerr's own statement might be evidence against himself, but not being made in the presence of the respondent, it wa3 no evidence whatever against her, because it was perfectly well known that some men were fond of boasting of favours never received from women. The case was therefore reduced to the question, whether there was sufficient evidence of adultery between . Matson and the respondent at their lodgings, in Grey - street. Their conduct, certainly, was exceedingly suspicious, but it was bard to say that it was sufficient to prove that 'adultery took place. There was no evidence, of improprieties between them to indicate more than a great familiarity as fellow passengers. No doubt" their conduct was altogether exceedingly suspicious. He would take time fco; consider the matter, and to look up some similar cases, as this was a serious matter, especially in the absence of the co-respon-dents, who had not been served. Mrs Humphreys was only served in March last in London, and he thought also that some evidence could/surely have been obtained as to? her life during" the last three and a half years, if she was such an abandoned woman as statements made out.—Mr Campbell pub in a letter which Mr Humphreys swere purported to. be from his daughter Daisy, ' but was in his wife's1 handwriting, stating •that "she accepted his ojfer, as she thought they nil should be with him." -His Honor said this could only be put in to chow that she was anxious to eot rid of the children, ana repeated that he would take time to consider the matter, upon which be was not at all clear,