DIVORCE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 44, 21 February 1900, Page 5

DIVORCE CASE.

SCOTT V. SCOTT,

A HUSBAND'S -PETITION.

THKEE CO-KESPONDENTB CITED,

TELL-TALE DIABIES.

A divorce case of considerable interest whs commenced at the Supreme Court this morning-, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a jury of. twelve, of whom Mr John Court was chosen .foreman,. The petitioner was Arundel Freke Scott, of Auckland, who prayed for a decree nisi for dissolution of his marrriage with Luoy Ethel Maud Scott (respondent), on the ground of her adultery with-, several persons. The co-respondents cited were: John Daniels (Wellington), John Tanner, and Cecil Boucher,

Mr Theo. Cooper and Mr Hugh Campbell appeared lor the petitioner.

Mr C. E. Button appeared for the co-respondent, Cecil Boucher; and Mr T. M. Wilforci, of Wellington, for the co-respondent Daniels. Neither the respondent nor the co-respondent Tanner were represented by counsel, nor did they appear.

Mr Hugh Campbell, in opening the ease, stated that in 1893 the petitioner was married to the respondent, Lucy Ethel Maud Scott. In May and June* 1597, and in 1899 the petitioner alleged that acts of adultery were committed by Mrs Scott with the co-respondents named, and also with a man name unknown. The defence was a, general denial of the charges of the petitioner. The co-respondents also denied having, committed adultery. /

Mr Campbell mentioned that as there was only suspicion agair/st Cecil Boucher he would not offer any evidence against that co-respondent. Cecil Boucher's name -was aejj'ording'ly sjtruck out from the list of co-respondents, on tlie application of Mr Button.

Mr Campbell went on /to say that after the couple were married, and went, to live at Te Puke,, Scott began to have suspicions of'his wife,.: arid these were deepened by' some letters which were found. A diary of Mrs Scott's, dated Juno, 1898, referred to a visit paid to Auckland in "J.T.'s" company, and detailed walks, and a rab drive home from 'the dentist's. The portion: of the entry referring to the drive home, from the dentist's ended: "Don't know anything more-r—all. like a haze to me," Evidence in support of 'the respondent's adultery with some person unknown at Remuera would be given by Mr ißassett. The petitioner also alleged that resnoii* dent committed adultery at.'Rotorua with John Daniels, shipwright, of Wellington. Evidence would be brought to show from Mrs Scott's diary that Daniels .had been payingl her a great deal of attention. THE PETITiONEITS STORY. Arnndel i\ Scott, who said* lu^ had been a fanner, }>ut had a little money, stated that he was married on the Ist of June, 1802, at Trinity Church, Tauranga, to the respondent, -whose maiden name was Harris. They lived to-g-ether at Te Pnke till IS9S. Some time prior to that, in ISO 7, he fortned suspicions regarding' his wife's conduct. In June, 1898, his wife wished to. go to Auckland to attend a dentist's and he provided her with money for the purpose. " Alter she went he found John Tanner, a farmer, one of the co-respon-dents, accompanied 3ier to Auckland., A few weeks after this a letter came into his possession from Tanner ad- [ dressed to Mrs Scott, and its contents aroused his suspicions. He had. provided his wife, with a suitable hoitie and necessary funds. She took the; children with her to Auckland on, that occasion. Their youngest child was born in February, IS9B. • Up-to the present, since the separation, he had been paying her house rent and: £100 a year for her support. They separated in ISOS. Their oldest, child' wa.v I about six years.cl" age. There-were | four children. Petitioner knew Jolvn j Tanner. He was a I'esident of /T?e Puke ' lin 1397 and 1898. He was a friend of petitioner's. They were well acquainted. - ; ■ i;:ij> ■■;■■:> i

Petitioner went on to .say, in.'^ngwei?;. to Mr Cooper, that lie had in hisr possession certain diaries kept ;l>y his wife. (Small jjocket diary, produced and identified). This diai-y, of 1897, was in Mrs Scott's handwrt'ing: Under date February 24, and various succeeding' dates during- 1897.-there,.-iyerc numerous entries referring1 J§- v v*T3' and "John Tanner," in somo of which reference is made to '\spoonin.o\" under cabbage trees and-in the Maori, J*esedve. One entry, dated March. 14, said (according'-to the "Registrar's reading1). "John Tanner spent day. John and self went for "maslv" down willow bank." His Honor: Went for what? ', Mr Cooper: For a -"mash." The .iivry probably know what, it is, Your Honor. (Laughter.) • ■ : ■ His Honor (examining' the entry): The word is written "much," which probably is meant for "moueh," not "mash." The Registrar then read nn entry of May 2 ns follows: "Met- J.T. by Basset t's. Sp.cabb.tveeliourha.il." .

MY Cooper: T think that means, Your Honor, that they "spooned" Tinder a cabbage'tree for an hour and a half. ■■...'.,

An entry of June 3, 189", ran: "J.T. came home with me. Had "spoon" in. rlitch out of the rain." An entry cf June 9th, after speaking1 of the visit to n dancing class at lan•vvood, ended: "Spooned Maori Reserve, .T.T." Ansrust 35th: ' "Met J.T.; had number one going-. homo. Spooned Maori ditch. August 22: ".Ti T.. self, Maori Reserve," There were subsequent entries referring to Mnoai Reserve. The October entries included: October 10: "M "-i or i Reserve; spooned with J.T." Oetobpv 14: "Met .T.T.. trees." An <mtry of November IS was: "Went down the roacl.'as fax' as tea-tree; sr>. (interpreted to-mean "sT)oo.ned') .T.T. ten minntes,"

Mrs Scott's pocket : diary, of ',1898 was then produced and put in as evidence. Some of the entries referred to Mrs Scotts visit to Auckland, aeoompa'niefl by Scoft. Sho stayed at,. Merlin Honse with Mrs King. - 'Tan-/ ner's cousin. The last entry refeiv rinjr to Tanner snid: '"John came just as I was having- a bath, stayed/two hours. We both wont to the dentists, j John brought me home in a cab. ! Don't 'know anything more—all is ft ihnze to me. -I left for .-Sydney.?''/ j The petitioner, continuing- his evidence, went on to say, that in ilSO? and 3SOS there was a change in his j wife's demeanour to him. He f v?as :away a'fyond rtcnl at- various tjniesi !. To TTis Honor: Mr Tanner wag v»>ry ; seldom at-. Uie Jjouse when "vvitness i was at home. On one or- two occasions he stayed all night TfVhe.n jiyifc- ! ness was nt home. . j A I.ETTRR TO MIIS 3COT-T: •■■ ArtaiJi1 Jftjnea Kfaloasj'r of

Te Puke, was the next witness. iH3 deposed that he was a brother-inrlavs< of . John Tanners,, one of-the co-re-spondents. He knew Tanner's handwriting. A certain letter (produced)' was in his writing. It wr/s addressed from Sydney to Mrs Scott'," and the postmark bore the Auckland date.oi June 27, 1898. / .

The letter was read' by. the Registrar. It was couched in verey affec-i tionate terms, and referred to Mrs Scott's visit to thfe dentist to have teeth extracted, The writer amongst other sentences said: "Dear Eth:.

[What an -awful/time -that was! IS has haunted me ever since. I never shall forget those; last two hours in! ! Auckland. Do you remember anything of the last scene? . . . "Miss Stewart came i.n, and I had only a few minutes to go away and catch the boat. In my distraction I kissed you over and over again before. Miss Stewart. Whatever could she have thought of i.ne?" . Malouey stated that he knew Mrs Scott and Mr Tanner were .on inti« mate terms, but he knew of no particular acts. ... .;, AT THE DENTIST'S.- ' : " Dr. P. A. Lindsay deposed that o"n! June 14, 1898, he was called to Mr Kemp's, dentist's, .to administer! chloroform to Mrs Scott. A gentleman was there. Witness thought ati the time he was Mrs Scott's husband. Witness administered chloroform. r t<a Mrs Scott. He opened her dress to examine her chest, to see if her hearfi was all right, before/ g-iving thf> chloroform. This, was done" in thq man's presence, and he remained hi the room the whole time the dental ' operation was proceeding. After she came, to witness asked her male1 companion where he was going- to. tak'tS her to, and he said 'to. a ; boardings house in Hobson-street. .; ". '- ! Mr Campbell here put in the evidence of Mr D. Kemp, denttst/ and, his daughter, Margaret Kemp, taken.' on commission at Wellington, .; The evidence showed that in. 189S, -when Kemp was iii business in .Auckland* Mrs Scott came to him, to ftaye! her. teeth attended to. and she was -accompanied by a gentleman. Mr'..Kemp was not sure that the man-was in the room at the time the operation was proceeding. ■;■■;• -■,■;■-, .\ : ■• The Court then adjourned till- twa o'clock this afternoon, when the .allegations concerning" Daniels were) gone into, . ', i - Mr AVilford thanked Mr. Cooper foi»

his generous action towards,his (Mi? Wilford's) client; He further said that he was well aware .that Mr Cooper did not knew Avhen: the-action was begun what the character: of: tha chief witness against Mr Daniels was. Mr Wilford had been well, aequ'aiuted with tha,t ivifness for 'a number' P? years, and knew what fiiis character was. ••/ ' .''. ,■ ■ •>* ' -" i.

His Honor accordingly, said that John Daniels' name as co-respondent i would be struck out. • ■ j^';'' This concluded the case. • " .Mr Theo. Cooper then, addressed, the jury, and submitted :tliat-.tlie.evi-dence adduced and the entries'in the diaries must force the jury vto ,tfra conclusion that Mrs Scott ~ had ,com< mitted adultery with John -Tanner. It was evident that the, young man had fallen in love with Mr^Scott,' ami that illicit intercourse had taken place on various occasions. ■, - /.• •-

A CO-EESPO!NDEiS TT'S:NAME;: .;,', STRUCK OUT. When the Siipreme Court "rcsuniecl this afternoon, Wm; Geo. Bassetivprivate detective, deposed to having gona to Victoria to serve' copy jbff'jetitib'n and a citation on John Tanne^y-Hfe serve% it at Cheshunt (Victoria) -last year. - - ' "■'•■' : i :> : •.-.-•;; ■ -

Tanner admitted that; he was/the co-respondent named- in the papers. Witness said if Tanner had',iibt_<;om-/ mitted adultery with the \yomani;h'o/ should return and say so. Tanner xti-f plied: "I can't; and --I siipposb t ariic not the first young-mail.that has'inaclb 'that mistake with other in'en's wives?'

Mr Cooper said with reiqrehcef4cV the case against Mr Daniels', he wished' to withdraw the case against-th?fc gentleman. One of ■ the; ■'-'principal witnesses on whom thepetitioner'scuso ■against Mr Daniels rested,1 Was' iqimrt to be a man whose evidence could riot agninst Mr Daniels. It v.7as not hi/;'(Mr Cooper) felt therefore, thaiV§ie life<l-ho right to ask the jury to find a. /'erdiet Mr Daniels. It was not his (Mi: tJoopCooper's) duty to damna;iria! ; i?s'chai'» acter except upon the , most/ reliable evidence. After consulting petitioner and with Mr Wilford he hatl come1 to the conclusion tliat it- was manifestly his duty to wipi'draw "tlie case against Mr Darnels. / There f was nothing- which would .fustii'yLl'peii.tioner in charging- Daniels'".vith.adultery with Mrs Scott after what; 4iacl come to ■ -cotinsei's; kiimylecljfe.! 'Mr. Cooper therefore asked that Mi^Paniels name as a.co-respondent lie struck OUt* ■ ; ■ '.' :.. ': '.''■; ■]- " '.-.'. ;' • ,;■