HIS WIFE'S NIECE.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 294, 9 December 1920, Page 7

HIS WIFE'S NIECE.

j ALLEGATION AGAINST ! HUSBATTD I ' STRANG E STORY IX COURT. I Misconduct with his wife"? nice, :i J girl of 16* rears of age, was the alloL'a tion against the respondent in a defended divorce petition heard before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury at the Supreme Court ! to-day, the petitioner being Kate Smith ; (Mr. McLivcr, instructed by Mr. Mat I thews), and the respondent Arthur Samuel Smith, a half-caste Maori (Mr. .1. F. W. Dickson). Outlining the case, Mr. McLiver saiil that when the parties were married in 1017 the petitioner was 21 years of age and the respondent 26 years. The respondent in hie defence denied committing adultery, or alternatively, stated that if ho did commit adultery it was condoned. Kate Smith, the petitioner, said she was married on June 25, I!U7, at All Saints' Church, Ponaonby. She and ber husband lived in Auckland and suburbs. There were two children. Up to the birtii of the first child in March, 1018, she got alone; fairly well with her hueband. Afterwards the respondent began to stay out late at nights, eometimes being away all night. He struck her on several occasions and used filthy language towards her. lie kept her short of money. One night at midnight she we.nt to a gaming-house and brought him home. Witness thought ehe had always been a good wife to him. Once she was struck between the eyes, and another time, when she was in delicate health, a lump was raised on her back by a blow from her husband. XIECE SPEAKS TWO YEARS LATER. I'etitioner .-aid she decided to leave the respondent last June, when she received certain information from her niece, who was then in Palmerston North. Witness left her husband on August 2. and went. with the two children to Taumarunui, where she got work. The respondent had been paying 10/ weekly for each child. iFor about six weeks prior to the birth ■ of the first child the niece stayed with the parties, and witness expected the girl to keep house for the respondent in » petitioner's absence at the nursing • home, and to stay on for an indefinite • period afterwards. A week after the petitioner's return home the niece, who : appeared to be "snappy" with the re- [ spondent, left. Witness did not know ; why the frirl was "snubbing, , her lius- ■ band. Since the separation witness received a letter from her husband stating: "I have repeatedly expressed my , sorrow at what happened. I ask another final chance, and if ever I lapse again then I deserve it. ... 1 shall , ever pray that you w'll accept my prayer for forgiveness.' . Witness had. never forgiven him. On one occasion the respondent told her iie could not understand why the niece had written ;to her after such a long time. On an , earlie.r occasion her husband denied mie- " conduct, and later asked if witness i would not forgive him. She. replied, "Ko, I cannot." He then said. 'Well. ■ you cannot prove it. and I will fight it " to the bitter end," Witness aVlded j that she did not tell her husband of her niece's allegation until she was al>le t.> ' leave him. 'becauee s-he was afraid of him as he had such a brutal temper. n HER iHrSBAXirS VIRTUES. Cross-examined by Mr. Piekson. the petitioner said the reason she gave her husband for refusing to cohabit "'itii him was his treatment of her. Thr> respondent was not a ''drinking man.' 1 lie had always said lie was a half-<-a^tc. Counsel: What do you Fay yourself? Witness: I have doubts about it. Counsel: Speak not from rumour. ■ Have you found your husband committing any acts of immorality? Witness: Xo. Her husband was a. non-smoker, a non-drinker, and a moral man. Her information against him came from her mother, ler eister, and her niece. The alleged adultery took place two and a-lialf years (before she left him. "When she left the respondent he did not know the grounds of ; her action. When they parted she did '. not kiss her husband, but he kissed her ', on the cheek. Later that day he saw her. her mother, a friend, and the children at the railway station. He became excited, and got a policeman, but failed to ccc the party in the train. ; although the -witness was at a carriage window. His Honor ruled that certain letters written by a third party to the peti- ! tioner's mother were inadmissable. Counsel: The mother-in-law is at the 1 bottom of the whole trouble. ; His Honor: Ido not think you are ; entitled to attack her; she is not before ' the Court. Counsel: She will not come. ; Witness: She has never been asked. Counsel read letters written by the . respondent to the petitioner. In one bo wrote: —"Kate, your heart must be > frozen I am still hoping that i i before it is too late you will come ■ to your senses My heart is I still yearning for you, and hoping that when' the clouds roll by you will come '. back to mc." I n another letter be ">, wrote: —"I nm glad 1 am away from I I town, as I do not think I can bear the t I thought of our empty homo." Counsel: Do you know that the girl \ who is your principal witness has given birth of an illegitimate child? \ Witness: Yes. ; ATTACK OX THE NIECK. t The niece, an attractive looking young - woman, was then called. c His Honor said the witness was nut S bound to answer any question, but she j replied that she was willing to give 1 evidence. The. girl said she was a nieie of tlm J petitioner. In 1918 witness was hotlrfF--7 keeping for the respondent, during Mrs. , Smith's absence. She left the place as s soon as she could, because on the morne ing after Mrs. Smith went into the nilMi> ing borne she had a certain experience 'J with the respondent. Witness then gave - details of adultery, which she alleged the committed with her despite '* I her efforts to prevent him. After that l -I incident she put her dressing table ' i against her bc-droom door for Uvu or • j three nighw. s rriE DKKKXf i:. 2 For fhe defence. Mr. Dickson said the ). whole PJl.se depended upon the uneon-obt.----9 rated Btiiry of the niece. Ho believed ?.! the. petitioner was under the control <»r '.""'hypnotism of the "mother-in-law/ . The • 3 i petitioner bad to provo her case, the • r presumption of innocence being in favour 4 of the respondent. His lotters, which a \ they had heard, -were in endearing terms. ;, i The. purtioa had been happy, but the 0: mothur-iu-law was in the background. . There had been no court proceedings M against hia client on the ground of , ''■ alleged cruelty. Conneel suggested that - the. pntitioner'e Btory -was a most im--3 J probablo one, If her allegation was • J trun, then tho Tcepondent was a dirty j : scoundrel. He contudered that the niece's ■ Btory was propottteious, juui there _ was Z. '■ no corrnbmratlon. *-~■,. o 1 Ttio case la 'j^