DIVORCE OPPOSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 262, 5 November 1931, Page 8

DIVORCE OPPOSED.

HUSBAND'S ALLEGATIONS.

VIGIL OUTSIDE HOUSE.

ENCOUNTER WITH WIFE,

A husband who said that he smashed a window in a Ponsonby house and surprised his wife late at night in a bedroom'with another man sought the dissolution of his marriage before Sir. Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve in the Supreme Court to-day. Petitioner was an Auckland watchmaker, John Forrest Macready, who alleged misconduct against Anna Zillah Macready. Harry Gordon Tink appeared as corespondent.

In empanelling the jury, the petitioner and the respondent exercised their full right of challenge.

Counsel for the petitioner said the issue for the jury was whether or not misconduct was committed by the_ respondent and co-respondent on the night of August 2ft-

Evidence was given by the petitioner that he married respondent in February, 1920. There were two children. After the birth of the second child there wave differences. In 1926 an agreement was prepared under which the parties separated. Two months later there was a reconciliation, but in February, 1929, they again separated., In the past two and a half years, said witness, he had frequently seen his wife meet men in lower Queen Street. He followed her and. the co-respondent in a taxi several times.

Waited Three Hours. On Saturday evening, August 29, continued witness, he and two others went in a car to Summer Street, Ponsonby, and kept watch for three hours outside the house where his wife lived. At 11 o'clock, when the house was in darkness, he and ihis companions, who had taken their 'boots off, entered the gates and heard voices.

"I heard my wife crying and saying, 'You're cruel to me'," he said. He broke a window with a piece of wood, and two torches were flashed into the bedroom where the respondent and co-respondent were seen. The co-respondent made a remark, in reply to which witness said: "I've caught you nicely this time." The respondent ran out of the bedroom, along a passage, and jumped through a window into the backyard. The co-respondent said his name was "Flanagan," 'but some papers were found in the pockets of a suit in another room which contained the name Harry Gordon Tink. In a short time the respondent returned and became abusive to witness. She told him the children would have starved but for the assistance of the co-respondent. To counsel for the respondent, witness said his wife's familiarity with other men was the cause of the first separation. He denied that he was then drinking to excess. The reconciliation was a mutual arrangement.

"Home Broken." "My home was entirely broken," said witness, under cross-examination by counsel for co-respondent. . I h&d only what I stood up in." He said in reply to a question that the only course open to him was to let the children go with his wife. The only reason for the separation was that he suspected her of being unfaithful. . Witness denied that, when he bioke the window, he had thrown the block of wood into the room and struck the co-respondent. _ "If he had been struck he would not have known it," he said.

His Honor: Why is that? Witness: He was drunk, sir; very drunk. . Under further cross-examination, witness said his desire was to get free from a woman he knew to be unfaithful. He had beseeelied her to go straight, but she had treated him with defiance. Evidence corroborating the petitioner's account of the visit to the house in Summer Street on the night of August 29 was given by Frederick Charles Forsythe, storeman.

A private detective stated that he had been engaged by the petitioner early this year to observe the movements of respondent. He had seen her meet the co-respondent on a number of occasions.

Witness said his investigations culminated on the night of August 29.

This concluded the case for the petl tioner.

The defence, as outlined by counsel, was a complete denial of misconduct. Mrs. Maeready said her married life had been very unhappy, and on many occasions she had had to sleep with the door of her bedroom locked, for fear of her husband.

Counsel: You have heard him swear that you were unfaithful to him?— Yes.

Is that true or untrue?— Absolutely untrue.

(Proceeding.)