DEFENDED DIVORCE SUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 59, 10 March 1921, Page 5

DEFENDED DIVORCE SUIT.

j CONCLUDING STAGES. QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY. The defended divorce ease in wfaieft j Edward Henry Meurant (Mr. Dickson). • tramway rootorman, sought for a dissolution of his marriage w'th Isabel Meurant on the ground of alleged adultery with Henry Andrew Walker, woodcarver and tobacconist, who was cited as co-respondent, was continued to-day j before Mr. Justice Stringer and a jury jat the cupreme Court- Mr. Richmond ' and Mr. Houston appeared for responI dent anil co-respondent. I The co-respondent's son, Alex. Francis ;l|Wa!ker, aged. 17, who gave evidence on I behalf of the petitioner, said in cross-examinati-.n that his step-mother ob- ! jected to his presence in the house. Mr. Richmond: The only woman who was reaily kind lo you and was a i mother to you was Mrs. Meurant J—Fo"r I a purpose. I You have no gratitude towards her? — | No. I i You are a lone wolf? I | His Honor: A lone lamb. i Mr. Richmond: Your hand is turned ; ' against everyone: that is your feeling j towards the world?— Not by any means. II AVitness denied that because of his . I own unhappy early life he was jealous ,I of the friendship between bis father and . ! Mrs. Meurant. He was not "mad" on - ■ motion pictures. ■ ! Did you give yo-ur step-mother the ■ ; sleeping draught and watch the effects? '.'■— Yes. Mr. Richmond: That sounds rather like a piece from the pictures, doesn't It? • I The respondent and co-respondent on ■ oath denied the allegation of misconduct. ■ Rose Walker, daughter of the co-respon- . | dent, said she had stayed with Mrs. • . Meurant on several occasions and had •' never suspected improper relations be- . tween her and her father. THE MCDERX IDEA. ] i Addressing the jury. Mr. Richmond ' j said the suggestion to them was that 'ithe. respondent had an opportunity, and ', on that opportunity they were to 'find 1 jher guilty of misconduct. He supposed : every woman who kept a boarding-house. • every typiste in an office, every shop ' arid, indeed everyone had opportunities. _!In the old days, the Spanish idea w- H- ' I that as soon as a woman went with a I man something bad would happen I Nobody believed that now-a-days. j Summing up, his Honor said there were .two questions to be answered: (li Had it been proved to the satisfaction of th,I jury that the respondent and ro-r» I spondent were guilty of adultery ,i- the j times and places alleged in the p tition. |or any of them? i2< if so. a-en an-! J j where did such adultery taka | Dealing with the alleged "faked"' love letter which the said ft" ,- had written with the oVe.t of making '," , hbs wife, Mrs. Walker, jealo.is. his Honor ' I said it was quite impossible to believe " I that the petition"- believed ir wa = -written hy the respondent to the <■■• 'respondent Walker"; explanation thit ;he wrote ;.;" letter to annoy Mrn 'W:i!'.:er las probably a reasonable onrl lt seemed incredible that a man sho:M „o '~;!> his self-respect that be -houli c allow the man to whom his wife •=upr.osed to have written that letter, ;tu come back and Ii- c wi>i, mc family. 'and also that a month after li- riw>- ' 'eovery "f the letter be shciid enter into 5 a. partnership mat uoii'd thr ,w his wife info the tnari'- ' oii.i.-ariv. ! The judee. in -: rnming up. strongly , directed ti.e a'ti-'.iGou of the jury to a . number o: weakne in the petitioner's I , case. A r-aj rit;. verdict of 10 to 2 in ! favour if tne petitioner was returned. • i Leave was granted to the respondent to apniy for a new trial.