DIVORCE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 209, 3 September 1900, Page 5

DIVORCE CASE.

A CONTRACTOR'S PROFITS. -

lii the Wilkie divorce case in Melbourne, Edith Wilkie, of , St. Kilda, petiioned for a dissolution of marriage with Adam. Wilkie, contractor, of Fordell, New Zealand, on grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruelty, and adultery and cruelty. Mr Purves, in opening the case for the respondent, made some interesting disclosures relative to railway contracts in N.Z., and contended that if his client had been habitually drunk as alleged he could never possibly have made large profits as a contracor. The fact was that the Wilkie brothers originated a very-clever scheme; if a railway was roughly estimated tocost £100,000 they would tender for it. at a price of about £50,000. They succeeded in getting concessions on this sum, and they actually worked the traffic. These rough, uneducated men worked as clever a stroke of business as had ever been done in the -world. They went over the route, counted the waggons, estimated the probable traffic, and were able to undercut the other contractors to an enormous extent. In this way they were able to pile up huge profits. If an habitual drunkard could do that he could do anything. ,7_ Adam Wilkie stated in answer to Mr Hayes that he Avas born in Glasgow, and, after-being a small farmer in New Zealand, took' contracts with his two brothers and a man named Wilson on the Otaki railway. One of these contracts, whicli was managed by witness himself, was over a distance of 190 miles, and brought in a profit of £3000. His marriage took place while this work was in progress. Questioned in regard to his marriage, he said that he wrote to a matrimonial agency in Wellington. He did not know that he advertised for a wife exactly, counsel might call it advertising if he liked. (Laughter.) The matrimonial agency put a notice in the paper, and it. result was that he got a letter from the petitioner from Auckland. On getting this he went to Auckland, and subsequently to her mother's place, which was 45 miles out of the city. Petitioner met him at the station, and on the way to her mother's house they agreed to get\ married. They were married a few days afterwardsf and went to live at Otaki. in the Wellington Province. The witness gave a general denial to the statements made by his wife that he was repeatedly drunk at Otaki. Questioned next as to his experiences in Western Australia, he said that he and his brother took two contracts for constructing lines from Southern Cross to Coolgardie, and subsequently on to Kalgoorlie. They tendered for the line to Coolgardie at about half what it would cost them, on condition that they should be allowed to run the traffic and take the receipts for 15 months. Their tender was for £64,000. Their profit out of the two lines was between £150,000 and £160.000. Witness's share was about £ 75,000. Witness had between 300 and 350 men under him. He was never too drunk to do his work, but xwould admit that he was drunk on tbe day of the opening of the railway. He was never drunk for a fortnight at a time in Perth. It was absolutely untrue that for eight days he never took his boots off. \ We have already been informed by cable that a decree nisi was granted on the ground of adultery. o