THE AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10214, 9 December 1898, Page 6

THE AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

o (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, December 8. The divorce case Batger v Batger was con* tinued to-day. Edward Woollams, cook at the Auckland Club, dopused te Mrs U.itger being a boarder at his house. Henderson -' was a frwiun-J. visit--, but witness saw no impropriety .of a_rj kind. Thomas Henderson, e-c~i_*qp*-a_--i, deposed tliat in 1895 he gave Mrs Botg_r some money Avhilc living at Mrs Dillon's, tirafton road. He accompanied her to Maiiuka.li while on Union Coin.pony's business, and paid passages foi Airs Batger and her companion. He corresponded with her while at Wellington occasionally-— once a week. He did not think he had made her any presents up to that time except money. Mi's Batger and her maid came back to Auckland from Wellington in the same steamer as witness. He paid their passages. He paid money to her at this tinie, and culled at her lodgings twice a week. He went once to the theatre with a lady visitor staying at the same house and Mrs Batger's brother. He called. frequently on her at Mr Woollams*s house and went out for an hour's walk in the evening. Mrs Batger called at his house more than once. He supplied her with money casually, made her presents of jewellery, and at this time gave her a diamond ring, given as an engagement ring. While she lived at Northcote he supplied her with sonic money, and a.few groceries, but no liquors stive a pint case of stout. He visited the house frequently— sometimes three times a week, about 7 p"m. to 8 and 10 p.m., sometimes for only half an hour. When she went to Wellington, via Munukau, he paid the passages for herself and maid, and sent her meaicy by telegraphic order. She was ill at the Grand V Hotel. Ho paid her, roughly, while she was at the Grand Hotel less tJiiin £100 —he kept no records. He paid her passage to Sydney about the end of January this year. Her child remained in charge of the maid, and he paid for the child during Mrs Batger's absence in Sydney. He sent £20 to Sydney to Mrs Batger. He did not think he was maintaining, but only assisting her. He gave her presents—three rings, a gold watch, and a diamond engagement ring. He contemplated marrying Mrs Batger a long time since. In 1896 he made enquiries as to how an American divorce could be got, and received an opinion, or rather a precis of the American- law oil the subject from a friend in San Francisco. He arranged her passage for a trip with her boy round the South Sea Islands. An engage- , . ment existed between them up to time of Mrs Batger's leaving for America last month. In answer to Mr Cooper, witness said he first heard Mrs Batger was separated from her husband early in 1896. He beard her view of the circumstances and believed it. However foolish it might be, he had engaged to marry her when she got a divorce from her husband. That would ba in Sep* tember, 1896. He believed her up to that time an honest and pure woman. The engagement was with the approval of her own relatives. Witness made his intentions known to liis relatives, and she was introduced and received by some of tlutm on the strength of the engagement. He assisted her with funds, believing she was receiving no assistance from her husband or his- family. His attentions to "her were perfectly open. His belief- in her morality continued, , but it was -haken <• somewhat by. some reports he had heard: ,/ and he\ spoke about them, but her explana* ' •" tion appeared satisfactory. 'He believed in *-* her implicitly. Mr Cooper—What you have heard from some of the witnesses in this Court about Hughes may have altered your feelings towards Mrs Batger? Witness—Yes! 1 Continuing, witness-said-there was no impropriety between Mrs Batgei • . and him beyond t_e engagement. He did not say,that was exactly, the proper thing. He did not make direct payments to hotels and boarding-houses in Auckland for her be* cause he did not wont to 1 prejudice her. On the t>wo k issues submitted the jury found that Mrs -Baitger had % not committed adultery, .with-Thee, -Henderson <or_.."s. D. Hughes (whose whereabouts was unknown). The petition was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the co-respondent on the lowest I scale.