LONG DIVORCE SUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 190, 12 August 1919, Page 6

LONG DIVORCE SUIT.

WIFE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT. ■FOURTH DAY OF HEARING. Tiie defended divorce action, Charles Grant (Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., and -Mr. W. D. Anderson) v. Kliza Grant (Mr. K. J. Prendergast) and David Marshall (M>. \V. Oliphant), was continued yesterday afternoon and to-day at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury. The caee was begun, on Friday last. The petitioner, an elderly farmer and contractor living at Whangarei, charged his wife with misconduct with the co-respondent at Auckland in April and May, 1917. Tn the course of her evidence yesterday the respondent stated that when ehe told iier husband what was untrue, namely, that the child born after the marriage was not his, she was prepared to repeat the untruth under oath 1 in Court, beliering that ehe was justified in doing so if thereby she would obtain custody 01 the child. Referring to petitioner's allegation that she threatened to burn the house down, ehe said she made no such threat, but once, when he spoke of turning her out of the house in 24 hours, she told him that he could put a match to it if he liked. That was the origin, of his allegation.

The co-reepondent gave evidence on his own behalf, and denied any misconduct with the respondent. He admitted that he slept one night in the respondents liouse, but declared that no familiarity of any kind took place.

Three othor witnesses, including a son of the respondent, gave evidence as to the conduct of the latter while she was living in Auckland and her husband was ut Whangarei.

Drs. Lindsay and Mileom were railed and uave evidence as to co-respondent's physical condition, regarding which certain statements had been made by him in the course of his evidence.

Counsel addressed the jury, which had not returned a verdict at the time ot going to press.