DIVORCE SOUGHT.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 119, 22 May 1928, Page 5

DIVORCE SOUGHT.

BUILDER'S PETITION HEARD.

CO-RESPONDENT NOT NAMED.

WIFE DENIES MISCONDUCT.

A jury of twelve sat with Mr. Justice MacGregor at the Supreme Court to-day to hear the defended divorce petition of Ralph Gordon Player, builder, of Auckland (Mr. MeLiver), against his wife, Elizabeth Frieda Wilhelmina Player (Mr. Singer). The husband's petition was on the ground of adultery.

The defence was a direct denial of the offence. An order had been granted to petitioner to dispense with the naming of the co-respondent, whose identity was not disclosed.

Mr. McLiver said the parties were married in Auckland in December, 1912. They lived in Frankton, and subsequently in Auckland, and were apparently quite a happy married couple until October last. Mrs. Player then left her husband, and when he was away at work took away the furniture. He did all in his power to induce her to return, but his efforts failed. He agreed to pay her £2 a week, and the parties were not unfriendly. On January 14 he went to do some work at the hoilse where his wife was living. She Had told him she would be out at the time, but he found that she was at home with a male visitor. " Suspicious Sounds." Petitioner, in evidence, described the manner in which he visited his wife's home early on the evening of January He was accompanied by a man who was helping him to make pathways. The house was quiet at first, but whilst he was listening he heard suspicious sounds. He saw a man come to the back door and be admitted by his wife. When he looked in through the front window and spoke to them he heard his wife I say to the man, "Go for vour life—that's my husband." The man disappeared. A "Brazen Attitude." When witness spoke to his wife about it later she adopted a "brazen" attitude and said. "Anyway who would believe what you say?" There was an interview at a subsequent date between witness and his wife and two police constables. Cross-examined by Mr. Singer, witness said he and his wife had lived happilv together till October last. He did not know why she had sought a separation from him three years ago. He had told her once that as she wanted to go away SC \ir " s^e lac ' better stay awav Witness denied that he had ever* been drunk, but admitted that as a result of conduct his wife took proceedings against hi in in the Magistrate's Court and a separation was agreed upon. He owed some money to his wife at the time she took the furniture. He denied a . £ su « e f' on that on one occasion his wife had refused to speak to him over the telephone because he was drunk. "Get On With It." There was a sharp passage between the judge and Mr. Singer at a later stage, when counsel referred to a statement which, he said, was in his nates. His Honor: You need not bother about your notes; these are the official notes. Further argument as to the authenticity of the notes taken by coUnscl Jed his Honor to remark: "I am not accustomed to having my notes shown to be incorrect." Mr. Singer said he was not questioning the notes, but simpiv the typewritten record of the judseY associate. c His Honor: His notes are my notes. - r. Singei: I was simpiv labouriii"' under a mistake, which I hope your Honor will forgive. His Honor: Very well. Get on with A further reference by Mr. Singer to h:s notes led to his Honor saying: "Will you be good enough to accept "my ruling.' You are simply trying to mislead the jury; it is very short-sighted." To this counsel replied that he had no intention whatever of deceiving the jury. Fvidence as to alleged acts of adultery was given by Arthur Southgate, contractor, who accompanied the husband on the evening mentioned. Case for the Defence. Addressing the jury for the defence, Air. Singer laid emphasis on the fact that no co-respondent had been named by petitioner, and also that the constable who was said to have been called that evening had not been called as a witness. Mrs. Flavor, in the witness box, denied her husband's accusations of misconduct. (Proceeding.)