SOLDIER'S DIVORCE SUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 52, 1 March 1919, Page 11

SOLDIER'S DIVORCE SUIT.

DEFENDED ACTION HEARD. VERDICT FOR PETITIONER. The defended divorce case, Richard Leach (Mr. Singer) v. Elizabeth Leach and Harold Markwiek (Mr. Inder) was concluded at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before Mr. Justice' Hoskmg. The petitioner, a returned soldier, pllegcd that in his absence at the front misconduct took place between the respondent and the co-respondent, who was a lodger in her house. He also declared that they had been extravagant with the money which the respondent had received in allotments and separation allowances, and that the respondent had been financing Markwiek as a bookmaker.

A child of the parties and a young woman who had lived in Mrs. Leach's household were called with reference to the conduct of the respondent and corespondent in the house. This concluded the evidence for the petitioner. Mr. Inder, in opening his case, said that the defence, so far as both the respondent and co-respondent were concerned, was an absolute denial of misconduct. He proposed to disregard the petitioner's charges of extravagance against his wife. The presence of Markwick in the house was the result of an advertisement for accommodation for himself and his child. Mr. and Mrs. Markwick had previously taken in lodgers, and the respondent answered the advertisement. Counsel went on to state a number of reasons why it was highly improhable, apajt from the respondent and co-respon-dent's denials, that any misconduct could liuve take place.

I Mrs. Leach, in evidence, said that her I husband enlisted as the result of illI temper. When he returned from the | front she asked Markwiek to go, as her I affairs were on a better footing. Her husband, however, would not allow her to turn Markwiek out. He showed ill-temper with her and once attempted to choke her. He went away for a week, and then returned with the information that it was his house and she would have to get out. She left and went to live with relatives. Afterwards her husband spoke to her of her separation from her little girls, and said, "That will i reak your heart"' She had undergone seven different operations, the last and most severe of which was performed a few months before her husband's return. She sent the two boys to the Salvation Army home because they had- got out if her control. She absolutely denied any misconduct with Markwiek, and declared that she had only treated him as a brother. After her separation from her husband he and she rented rooms in the same private house. She was aware that Markwiek conducted dances. She had I been to them with female friends, and | later she used to collect money at the door for him. She received 4/- a night i for this. In answer to Mr. Singer, the witness I said that she had never been to races lin her husband's absence, though she went with him after he came back. She admitted writing a letter to the iffect that Markwiek had been bookmaking and had "gone broke," and that she had had to finance him. She swore that it was only just before this letter was written that she was aware that Markwiek was bookmaking. She denied that she got Markwiek to impersonate her husband in the purchase of the gramophone. Harold Markwiek, the co-respondent, corroborated the respondent's statement as to the manner in which he came to live in her house. He said that he lived there altogether for about two years. He was aware that the arrangement was causing some talk, and he determined to stay on until the husband came back, so that the matter could be cleared up. After Leach came back they went together to a number of people who had made remarks, and got apologies from them. Leach appeared to be satisfied. Later Mrs. Leach asked him to go, but Leach told him to stay. One evening soon afterwards he found Leach with his hands on Mrs. Leach's throat, and made him desist. He had never committed misconduct with the respondent. She had befriended himself and h : s child and he had much respect for her. Cross-examined, the witness denied that he had ever represented himself as "Mr. Leach," but subsequently admitted that he had purchased the phonograph in that name. The eldest child of the parties was called, and stated that she had never seen any kind of familiarity between her mother and Markwiek. | After a retirement of an hour and a I half, the jury returned a verdict that the respondent and co-respondent had ] been guilty of misconduct. His Honor granted a decree nwn, to be moved abso- ' lute in three months, and ordered the co-respondent to pay £35 coots, also disbursements.