WIFE'S STORY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 189, 12 August 1933, Page 13

WIFE'S STORY.

OPPOSING DIVORCE.

ALLEGATIONS DENIED.

WHY SHE LEFT HOME.

The action for divorce brought by Kenneth Kahili George Richardson against his wife, Mona Mary Richardson, on the ground of adultery with Harry Reginald Jenkins, ex-M.P., concluded its third day of hearing yesterday, when an adjournment was made till Monday. It is expected the action will last at least another two days. The petitioner is claiming from the co-respondent £1000 damages. The action is being heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury of twelve. Mr« C. Weston and with him Mr. J. R. Hopkins appears for petitioner, Mr. R. A. Singer for the respondent, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone and with him Mr. C. J. Lovegrove, for the co-respondent.

The respondent and co-respondent in their defence deny the allegation of adultery.

In opening the case for the defence, Mr. Singer said - that before a verdict in favour of the petitioner could be returned the jury would have to find that the respondent had committed adultery with the co-respondent, and he would submit that on the evidence the jury could not find a verdict for the petitioner. The charge was the gravest a husband could bring against a wife, even in these days, and, as was the case in a criminal charge, those making the charge must prove it to the hilt. The petitioner had to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, and if there was the slightest doubt the jury was in duty bound to find in favour of the respondent. The whole married life of the parties had to be considered, and he submitted he was entitled to tell them it was a "put up job" by a man who was disappointed in not getting his freedom as he expccted. On November 13 Mrs. Richardson left her husband, and six days later, when Richardson's parents went to visit him, his whole manner towards his wife had changed. From the month of November, 1931, to August, 1932, the petitioner actually sent his wife no money to keep herself and two small children, but she managed to collect £13 from accounts owing. "That is the genuine type of man you have as petitioner, in this case," said Mr. Singer. Unhappy Marriage. "The parties were unhappy and the wife was constantly telling him she would leave him; in fact she packed her bag on several occasions," said Mr. Singer. "He was cruel to her, cruel to animals, cruel to women, and because of the agonies she had suffered with him, Mrs. Richardson could not stand it any longer and finally left him on November 13, 1931. I might ment.io.ji that Richardson was a gentleman of some sublety, because he wrote a letter which he gave her to post putting the responsibility upon her. She .will tell you that she was in such a physical state of health that she could not remain longer with her husband, because of his cruel treatment of her. We will tell you that on the occasion in July, 1931, wiien respondent came to Auckland it was at the invitation of her husband. But by what I may call the inferior subtlety of Richardson he gives a slight twist to facts to make them reflect upon his wife."

objective. "Hero is a disastrous marriage," said Mr. Singer, "and 1 don't care whether you blame the man, woman or both. I ask you to bear in mind that the man had the best of reasons for getting free of his wife, because he wanted to marry another. And now at last he wants to do something for his children, but he wants to do it, not with his own money, hut with the money of someone else. He asks for the round sum of £1000 for the wrong he says has been done him, and the breaking up of his—as he says—happy home.

March 18, 1931. Dealing with the night of March 18, Mr. Singer said that prior to that day Mrs. Richardson had been through an ordeal with her husband and when she left Te Paki with her brother she was in a state of prostrate distress. She had no coat and hat and on arrival at the hotel she was given room No. 5 and she did not leave it once during the few hourr she stayed at the' hotel. Jenkins was at the hotel before Mrs. Richardson arrived, but Mrs. Richardson did not know it till she happened to see J|ukins there and expressed surprise. Jenkins and Otwa'y visited Mrs. Richardson's room, and all three would say they were in her room till Otway and Jenkins left to go to their own room about eleven o'clock. Counsel invited the jury to reject the evidence of Mr. Thode in toto. He characterised it as "extraordinary," and the evidence of Morrison as "even more extraordinary" and extravagant. Respondent Called. Respondent, Mona Mary Richardson, said that after her n.arriage to Richardson they went to live at Tunanui. Life was not too pleasant owing to his bad temper. After being at Tunanui for three years they moved to Hunua, whero life was awful. His temper was the cause of the unhappiness and they could not <*et on at all. Neither at Tunanui nor Hunua did petitioner's cruelty reach physical violence towards lier. I lie cruelty was more mental. He was, as she had stated in one of her letters to him the cruellest man she had ever known. She did not think she had ever done anything seriously wrong to which her husband was justified in taking exception. On different occasions prior to November of last year she.had threatened to leave him. At Hunua things had been awful, and in March, 1931, at which time there were two childrent> the marriage, she went to Pe Paki She did not like Te Paki at first, but got to love it.

The first time stic met Jenkins was at General Richardson's house just before- she' went to Te Paki. Mr Singer: Was there anv violence by your husband while you were at Te Paki?—Yes, twice. What did he do ? On one occasion lie caught me round the neck, and on l Ue other occasion lie knocked me c across the bedroom.

Sulked for a Fortnight. Do you think he realised what lie was doing when in his bad tempers ?-No, I don't think he did. What other form: did his temper take ?—He would not speak °i «o three days and just before I left him ho sulked for a foi tnight. Respondent said because of his treatment of her the strain was becoming unbearable, and lier nerves were in such a state that she would become, hysterical during the night and burst into tears. On November 12, 1931, she - told her husband that she could not stand it any '-longer and would take the children to Auckland and go to stay with her mother. ' , Mr. Singer: Did you tell linn, or lead him to believe, you were leaving him for good? —No. ;

Mr. Singer said that there could be Respondent said that in June, 1931, nothing suggested against Jenkins and Jenkins and Wiley came to Te Paki. Mrs. Richardson during 1931, because She had spoken to her husband about they hardly knew each other, but that her teeth and ears requiring attention, did not matter to a man who pursued an and told her husband it would be a good

idea to go to town in Wiley's car, a«3 it would save expense. Her husband asked Wiley, and, he being agreeable, respondent came to Auckland, all three separating 011 arrival in Auckland. She returned to Te Paki 011 June 28, 1931, and did not see Jenkins again till the following year. Mr. Singer: Did Jenkins or Wiley in any way try to influence you to come to Auckland'and get your teeth attended to ?—No. On November 13, 1031, you took your children and left your husband? —Yes.

Just before that you wrote your mother and told her of the desperate condition of affairs up there ? —Yes. And you got a letter from your brother? —Yes. And that letter caused a violent scene between you and your husband? —Yes. Did you write any letter over which there was a row ? —Yes, to petitioner's mother. Why?— Because my husband had received a letter from his mother protesting about my extravagance because I had a new frock. When did you get that new frock? — In June, 1931. Where did you get it? —My mother bought the material and had it made. Did you pay for the making?—No, my mother did. That was in June, 1931; when did you previously have a new dress ?—I got a gown in February, 1930, when my baby was born. Well, you haven't been a very extravagant wife in the matter of frocks. Friend of Petitioner. Continuing, respondent said she had met Betty Kember before respondent married Richardson, and knew they were friends. Respondent left her husband on November 13, and on November 18 he wrote asking her to return to him. Six days later he had decided upon a separation, if he could get it. At this stage the further hearing was adjourned till Monday.