HAMILTON DIVORCE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 215, 9 September 1921, Page 6

HAMILTON DIVORCE COURT.

BATHER REMARKABLE. DIVORCED AT SEVENTEEN, (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A case which contained some remarkable features was heard at the Divorce Court this morning, in which a young man of about 25 years sued for divorce from his young wife of 17 years on the ground of alleged adultery. The petitioner was William Carson, and the respondent Rhoda Frances Carson, while George Keynar, of Rotorua, was cited as co-respondent. Mr. C. L. MacDiarmid appeared for the respondent, instructed ■by Messrs. Edward and Roe, of Rotorya. He stated that his instructions were not to oppose the petition, but he would probably apply when the decree absolute was made for the custody of the children, as respondent did not consider petitioner a fit and proper person to have charge of them. The co-respondent was unrepresented, and by consent of counsel the jury was dispensed with.

The petitioner stated that he married the respondent in September, 1919, at Christchurcli, and there were two children by the marriage. Since being married they had lived at Christehurch, Auckland, Tauranga, and Te Puke. A dispute arose between them some time ago at Te Puke, when respondent left him and obtained a position as housekeeper with the co-respondent, Keynar. In answer to his Honor petitioner said his wife went with his consent. He could not get a house at Te Puke, and she was leading him a terrible life. "I offered to allow her to 'board at the local hotel," he explained, "but she refused. We were then living in a whare." Petitioner went on to say that while his wife was at Rotorua he received an anonjanoua letter which aroused his suspicions, and as a result he instructed a private detective to keep his wife under observation. He himself also watched co-respondent's house, and saw them one night go out together about 7 o'clock, returning at 10 p.m. Through two holes in the door he saw co-respon-dent kiss his wife, and then witnessed misconduct take place. Subsequently he also witnessed misconduct between the parties.

In answer to Mr. AraeDiarmid, petitioner stated that his wife vras 16 years of age when he married her. At the time she took the position as housekeeper she was 17. The cause of the dispute at Te Puke was his wife running about the countryside spending money in company with other men. In addition to that she was always nagging him. He knew his wife about eight months before he married her. He had always treated her kindly except on one occasion. On that occasion he had been working late, and about six o'clock in the morning his wife began to taTTc wTien he wanted to sleep. He told her to keep quiet, but she refused, so he got out of 'bed, intending to go out. She pulled him back into ■bed, and commenced to pelt him with some rubber tubing. He then gave her some hard slaps. That was the only semblance of cruelty he had ever shown her.

Mr. MaeDiarmid said he would only record his instructions from the wife's solicior. They had taken the necessary stens in the matter.

His Honor remarked that the applicant should have put in for the respondent's costs. A decree nisi -was granted to be made absolute in three months, and costs were allowed on the lower scale, as in a defended action.