PROLONGED DIVORCE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 189, 11 August 1919, Page 7

PROLONGED DIVORCE CASE.

_0 . THIRD DAY OF HEARING. ELDERLY COUPLE AS PARTIES. The defended divorce action, Charles Grant v. Eliza lirant and David Marshall, was continued at the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury. Mr. .). R. Reid, X.C, and Mr. Anderson appeared for the petitioner, an elderly farmer and contractor, living at Whangarei. Mr. U. .1. Prendeigast appeared for the respondent, and Mr. W. Oliphant for the co-respondent. The case was begun on Friday. The ground ol" the petition was alleged misconduct, stated to have taken place between the respondent and co-respon-dent at Auckland in April and May, 1017. The petitioner, who married tbe respondent (then a widow) in 1903. built her a house at Auckland in lillli, because she wished to live in town. He alleged that once he came to Auckland on one of his periodical visits, but without giving warning, and was surprised to see the co-respondent (a former employee of his) walk into the house without knocking, to his wife's obvious confusion. Later he questioned his son, aged about 12, who gave him information which led him to seek a divorce. The son, called as a witness, said thai the co-respondent Marshall frequently slept in the house, and used to keep out of the way whenever visitors came. Evidence was ul.-o given thai after ! divorce proceedings wore started the re- | spondent wrote to her solicitor admitting misconduct and that she dnt not wish to defend the notion. Mr. Prendergnst, opening the defence, said that his client would state that Marshall came to the house on very fewoccasions. She would deny that he ever slept in the bouse, and other evidence would bo called in support of this. It was nlso proposed to show that on April 24, 1017, when tho petitioner said that Marshall came into the house unannounced, Marshall was not in town at all. It would also be stated that when j the petitioner and Marshall first met ,in the house, .Maishall was let in by the I respondent, and that this happened in [.May, not April. Regarding Mrs. Grant's letter to her solicitor, counsel said that [ her life with the petitioner had been | such that she was not averse from a divorce, provided that she could obtain I reasonable access to the child, and there was no undue publicity. Later she abandoned this attitude. The respondent, giving evidence, said that after the first few months of her marriage with the petitioner she was far ■ from happy. She worked like a slave on his farm, cooking sometimes for 18 per- ) sons, including the members of her family and a number of boarders. She denied that Marshall paid frequent visits ito the house in town, or that he ever 'slept there. Most of his visits, she said, were when her husband was in town, and were for the purpose of seeing him. She went only once to a theatre with Marshall, and then throe of her sons went with them. She admitted that once in a quarrel she threatened to hit her husband with a jug. but denied that she ever tried to burn the house down. Her explanation of the charge was that bor husband offered to have her out of the house in 24 hours, and she replied, "You can put a match to it if you like." Continuing, the witness said that the occasion when Marshall met the petitioner at the house was the first on which Marshall had ever been there. The loiter referred to was written in hoi- husband's presence, and as a result of his persuasions. Ho made a copy of it. and wont with her to her solicitors, waiting outside while she wont in. Ho had understood up to that time that. she iva_ going to defend the action. It was true that she told her husband that the child born after the marriage was not his, and that she would say so in the witnesss-box. The statement was untrue, but she made it in the hope that it would help her to get custody of the child. Questioned further, the witness said that since ho was attacked bydnfluenza her husband was n changed man. Ilis Honor: Perhaps ho became less violent. Witness; Xo, ho got more so. I thought the man was mad. Mr. Rood: Ami yet you told him tho child was not his. Weren't you afraid of him? Witness: No, I am not afraid of him now. (Laughter.) (Proceeding.) _____________ i