A CHINESE RESTAURANT KEEPER.
APPLICATION FOR DIVORCE FROM HIS EUROPEAN WIFE.
The long-pending divorce case of Thomas Quoi, a Chinese restaurant-keeper, lor
divorce from his European wife, Alary Josephine Quoi, on the grounds of adultery with Bertie Neal, came before His Honor Judge Conoily ab the Supreme Court chis morning. Dr. Laishley appeared for the petitioner. Mrs Quoi (tho respondent) and Bertie Neal (the co-respondent) wero not present or represented. Dr. Laishley briefly ope.icd the catiO. He explained the marriage certificate showed that respondent was married in tho name of Annie O'Dowd, but it would bo shown | tliab Mary Josephine was a religious name ai'terwarus assumed by Mrs Quoi, utid bhab ib was the name sue went under as petitioner's wife. Or. Laishley then went on to detail the evidence that lis would biing to show the adultery of Mrs Quoi with Neal. Johu Cuthberb Downey, Roman Catholic priest, was bho lirsb wibuoss called, lie deposed to being bho officiating minister ab bite marriage of the parties on the loth November, 1886. Witness produced the.original register signed by Thos. Quoi and Annie O'Dowd. lie afterwards knew the woman as Mrs Quoi, and he had seen her frequently at Quoi'3 restaurant. They wero man and wife so far as he know. Ho bad met thorn frequently together. Witness stated that ho endeavoured to bring about a conciliation between tho parties eight months ago. lie had no doubt whatever that the Annie O Do v.d lie married was Mis < L >uoi, who lived at the restaurant in Quean-street. Thomas Quoi, the petitioner, staled that his Chinese name waa York Quoi. He had kept a restaurant in Queen-street lor close on twolvo years. Witness had been IB months iv his present premises, previous to which lie had been on the übher side of tho road. He was married ou the loth of November, 1836, by Father Downey, after which he lived wibli respondent ab Park Houso, Vietoria-streer, \Y akoiiold-siroet and at tho Queen-street restaurant. Witness was living at his present premises when petitioner lofb him. Thero had been ono is.uo of bhe on the 14th August, I__7, a boy named Thomas Joseph Quoi. \YiS-nc-.a stated he took in boarders, at his restaurant in I_B9 and 1090, and that Bertie Neal, a labourer in tho employ of the Freezing Works, was among bho number. Witness testified that Nea wus a boarder in bis house in June, 1889. Ono night in June, 1890, or at tho end of May he opened the dining - room and found Neal and his wife inside, and witness remonstrated. He ordered Neal out of bhe house, and his wife also wont with him. About a quurtor to ten witness returned to his bedroom, expecting his wife to bo there, but ho found that she had gone and taken tho child with her. Witness heard his wife had gono to her mother's place at tho North Shore. Ho went across in the ferry steamer and found the mother's house empty. Witness returned to Auckland, and did nob sse his wile for bwo days afterwards, when he found her at her mother's place in Cross-street, Newton. The first time he heard of his wife's adultery was about tho beginning of October. Ho was informed of the matter by Isaac Moore, who would bo called on to give evidence. Witnoss saw his wife at Cross-stroct, and he usked her why she wenb away from him. She replied ib was on account of witness kicking up a row wibh her. His wifo roturnod homo with him, and they lived tog.tiior for two months, when she got drunk and smashed up bhe glass door. Witness sent for her mother, who book her away, and bhis was the last time thoy lived together. Witness' wifo accused him of cruelty, and commenced an action for judicial separation. In 1889 and 1891), witness waa frequently away at To Arohn, having an interesb in some mines there, He used to leave on Saturday and return either on Monday or Wednesday. In tho months of November and December, 18-9, his restaurant was on tho east, side of Queenstreet. Ellen Carroll was then a waitress in his employ, but was nob now. Sho entered his emply early in 18.8, and left, in February or March, 1890, and was employed in his restaurants on both sidos of Isaac Moore often stayed ab witness' restaurant. He knew a Mrs Spencer, who was a frequent visitor to his house in 1889. Witness had not cohabited with his wife sinco her mother took hor away. To His Honor : He remembered his wifo taking proceedings for maintenance, and that an order was made against him to pay her sixteen shillings petweek, but ho had nob paid her anything. He remembered her cos's being taxed against him to the amount of £12 Is 4d, but ho could not say if ib was paid. He only knew that a claim was senb in by Mr Napier bo tho Official Assignee. His Honor pointed out that witness had sworn twelve months ago thab he gob bhe information from Moore on the 15t;i of September. He now said the 14th of October. Which was right? Witness : As far as ho knew his wifo lefb Auckland for Sydney four or five mouths ago. Dr. Laishley, in explanation of petitioner nob paying tho maintenance money and costs, stated that petitioner had become bankrupt, and lie did not know if respondent had proved against the estate, so he was nob aware if she had raceived anything or nob. Isaac Mooto, gumdiggor,. csidiugab Whangarei, stated that he stopped at Quoi's residence about two week, before Christmas, 1889, and Eerbie Neal was also lodging there. Mrs Quoi and Bertie Neal opappeared bo be on very intimate terms. Witness remembered ono evening shortly before Christmas, when Mr Quoi " was away ab Te Aroha. He went to his bedroom between 10 and 11 o'clock, and while passing the kitchen he opened the door to get a light, and saw Mrs Quoi and Bertie Neal together. Witness went to bed, but he could not sleep. He got up and lib bhe candle, and came downstairs again to geb a newspaper from the dining - room. This was some time after eleven o'clock. The public door of the restaurant was closed, and no people were aboub in the house. When passing the kitchen window where the dishes were be saw a light in tho kitchen, but the light in tho dining-room was out. When he passed tho window at first to got the paper he thought no one was in the kibchen, bub when returning ho thought ho heard a noi?e there, ancl stopped at the window. He saw Mrs Quoi rise in. from the floor, and he saw Bertie Neal rise up immediately afterwards. They . were close together when he saw them rise up. Two chairs were near, but they had not rison off thero, for he could see the chairs. Witness remembered meeting Bertie Neal at breakfast next morning, when bhey had a conversation, and witness told him he seemed to be on very intimate terms with Mrs Quoi. Bertie Neil laughed, and made a certain statement to him. Witness stated Ellen Carroll was a waitress at the breakfast table thab morning, and she could overhear the conversation between them. From what witness caw in the kitchen on the previous night, he had no doubt bhere had been adultery between Mrs Ouoi and Neal. Ellen Carroll, waitress, referred to by tbe two previous witnesses, nexb gave evidence. She remembered before Christmas, 1889, i when Mr Quoi was away ab Te Aroha, One ! afternoon. Mis Spencer and Mrs Quoi weal
to the North Shore aboub two o'clock. Bertie Neal was then lodging in the house. Some one sent one for Bertie Neai, and shecalled him. Neal .vent down the street, and, she was told, met Mrs Quoi and Mrs Spencer in front of the Waverley Hotel. Mrs Quoi told witness they bad gone bo the North Shore and asked her not to let, Mr Quoi know. Witness detailed the circumstances that took place ab the breakfast-table between Bertie Neal and tha witness, Isaac Moses. She overheard the conversation, but ecu'td not recollect the exact words used. Witness had acen Nea! cumin.: out of Mrs Quoi's bedroom when Mrs Quoi was in bed. lb was on a Sunday morning when Mr Quoi was at Te Aroha. Mrs Quoi and Nea! were thick with one another, being like man aud wife. She would net have tea till he came. The conduct of Mrs Quoi and Neal was a frequent topic of conversation among bhe servants of the house. To His Honor : She had never spoken to cither Mr or Mrs Quoi abottt the matter. Ib was nothing to her. She first gave information on lite subject to Mr Quoi in March, 1890, and. told him of the conversation between Moore and Neil that shn hud overheard at tho breakfast table. When witness lefb Mr Quoi's employ, Neal was boarding there. She hud sworn an affidavit alter the left Quoi's service, and she told him all she knew about the matter. His Honor drew bhe attention of witness that in tier sworn affidavit s.ho had said nothing aboub Neil coming out of Mrs Quoi's bod-room. This was the evidence. His Honor said he must grant a decree . 'si, but the case was a very unsatisfactory ono, and if the respondents had appeared, the evidence was of such a slight nature the case would have probably broken down. His Honor said ib was to tho interesb of the respondent to be separated from the petitioner. An application was made by Dr. Lni.'iley in respect to tho custody of the child, bub His Honor said is had better form the subject of a separate amplication heraaftor.