THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16217, 21 May 1918, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Herdman.) The civil sessions opened yesterday morning. DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE. •James Hicks I'arKiusoa {Mi .-vipors) penuoueu lor :i dissolution ui his niui.mgo win Alice (uw iuyucMiatuj, and iui damans. j.-oJtoii >\". J. .tinnier,) was joined as co-respondent. '.me licai lug ivas bonne a couuaon jury, or wiucji .ur a. I', oniitli u.is cao.-eu lOieman. Mr i wytieiiam asifod ii tue case could got on iu view or uie lact'liiat peutionui' aad not complied vita an o.uur or tae Uourt, lor booui iLy ior lesponuoai's >osts. Mr Alpers said that respondent was well-off, wailo petitioner was not. .Petitioner had been guiity or eontt.Aipt of Court, but not intentionally so. it was open to counsel to serve u writ of attachment for contempt, at tiie conclusion of his evidence. His Honour informed Mr Twyneham that Jie thought lie had raised tae point too late. ■ Mr Alpers, in outlining the caso for petitioner, said taat tue jury wouid nave to decide whether respondent committed adultery with co-respond oat, and if so, whether the petitioner was entitled to any, and what, damages, in inspect of having his homo broken up. i'ho parties weie married before tiie Registrar of Marriages, Dunedin, on Juno Voth, 1917. \ihere was no issue. Prior to her marriage, respondent was ■ a Miss Clinton, of Darlield, and she and petitioner wore swoethearting in 1916. Petitioner left for the front the same year. Miss Clinton was anxious to marry him before he left, but he did not think it right that she should run the risk of becoming a young widow. Miss Clinton passed hert'eif off as having married petitioner before he sailed. Petitioner returned from the front last Juno, and he had not been back a fortnight when they were married. Respondent was. worth from £6000 to £7000, and a substantial farm property at Darfield. Petitioner did some work on the farm after his marriage. ►Sonic, years before petitioner met respondent, there had l>een intimacy between respondent and Polson, who was 6ft 7iu, to petitioner's sft oin. Respondent, after marriage, was ill, and was in a private hospital, and petitioner on three or four occasions found Poison at tho hospital. When petitioner took exception to Polson's- presence, Poison had said: Mr Parkinson, you don't understand; your iviic and 1 are in love with, one another. Petitioner protested to his •vilo against '-this nonsense." • Some time aiter, when .respondent was convalescent, and was at noino, siiu said she wanted to .go to No.v Jirignton to consult a faitu healer. Poison wasengaged at New liriguton as a lil'e.javcr. Petitioner in December ia,t iiad visited "tho batch" wheie ins wire was staying witti two or tmce women, lie waiLtd till one o'clock, and though, tno night was wet his wife came home "dry as it boue. ,; v ">Vliiie waiting tor his wife, petitioned found a very lUiSome letter rroin Poison to ilia wile*; also five photographs of L'oison, and a rolled-gold polo bail trophy. Hci gave his wife, at her request, tue trophy aad the photographs. Petitioner was tnen still anxious to forgive his wife, and showed the letter to Poison's father, with the object of getting him to bring his influence to bear on his son. On January 19Ui, tais year, tno day ■of the Now Brigntoh Gam, pctit'cner aad his brother Jack, aad two friends, named Clinton (the last-montioued Doing no relatives of respondeat) went to -Neiv J3rignton, but, owmg to a mishap to their motor-car, they uid not arrive at ''the batch" tillai'ti).- midnignt. Petitioner, on striking 'a match wnen | he got on the verandah, saw his wife and Poison lying in a single bed; both, were undressed. A fight took place between petitioner and co-respondent. Petitioner gave evidence on the lines of counsel's opening. Ho was crossexamined by opposing counsel with the view of showing that petitioner had been guilty of cruelty to respondent, and that her illness had been due to his striking her. .Petitioner denied tho allegations of cruelty. Evidence was also given in support of petitioner's evidonco bj' Daniel and David Clinton. .' " J

Mr T\vyneham said that he did not contest the allegation of adultery, but contended that the conduct of petitioner prior to January 19th towards his wife was such as to render it impossible for him to obtain damages. Mr Hunter said that he did "not dispute for ono moment that adultery was committed they simply contested the, action on the ground or damages. They would contend that Parkinson's conduct towards hi 3 wife was so abominable _ that he was: not entitled to a farthing damages. .The bv petitioner's counscl that Poison "philandered" with respondent while petitioner was away at the war was not borne out by evidenco. He (Mr Hunter) deprecated all allusions "to military service. Mr AJpers: 1 shouM think you would! J

. M, Hunter (continuing) said that Poison had been examined five times, | and each time had been turned down. Petitioner s military record, as "iven by himself, consisted of- "Sling Camp, Codford. on leave to mother, and b»ek to home and glory in New Zealand " engaged to respondent nntil May. 1916. and had never st>okf»u to respondent during petitioner's absence at the war. When Mrs Parkinson was in hospital she wrote to Polson. telling him of her serious -illness. c£ re s ret for the wav f had treated bim in the davs gone by. At the hosmta! there had been an unpleasant scene between Poison, Parkinson xij -S Ff Ison a waster." Poison told Pijifrinwaii that if there was rt, t possibility of Parkinson living happifv M^ S p iT"' h ° (Poison) would not see-Mn* Parkinson Parkinson,! after this, again ilUrmited his wife, I and> Poison cpc«>der*>d that it was his duty to oroteet Mr« Parkinson from her husband's vile crueltx*

• Alice May Parkinson, the respondent cahed by -*ir Hunter, statea tnat it was on Parkinson's advico that sho gave out that she had been married to nim. When he returned she considered she was in duty bound to marry him because site had token his name. All went well till three weeks after' their marriage, when he started his cruel treatment of her. The reason ior his cruelty was the property: Parkinson wanted her to put the property in his name; he had said that ne did not consider it right to work on a farm of which his wife was boss. "Witness described several occasions on which her husband had gripped her by the throat threatened to choke her, and, on ono occasion, he had struck her on the face; he had also struck her on the back. - ' Replying to Mr Alpcrs, witness stated that she nad not told her mother, her sisters, or her brothers' of her 'husband's cruelty.

To Mr Hunter: She had not spoken to her people about her husband's cruelty because she fe'.t ashamed aud wished to hide the matter as much as possible. To his Honour: She had confided her troubles to Poison.

L&lic .Stewart l'o.'son stated that up to recently he had been beach patrolman at New lirighton. He had enlisted three times before lie was drawn in the ninth ballot; on the three occasions prior to being drawn in the ballot ho was turned down on account of his height; when examined after being called up in the ballot he was rejected because he had gone through a severe illness. He gave similar testimony to that °f *^- e Previous witness as to what took-.place at the private hospital. "Witness. stated that petitioner was assisted by the two Clinton brothers when he assaulted witness. .Mr Hunter and Mr A'.pers addressed the jury, and his Honour summed up. The jury, after about half-an-hour's retirement, returned at 6.20 p.m., with the following replies to the issues submitted by his Honour: —(1) ]>hl respondent commit adultery w'ih ro-rest.<m-dent? Answer: Yos. (I) Did cn-rc-snondont commit -".du'terv with respondent. Answer: Yes. (3) A\*hat damages. if any. is petitioner entitled to? Answer: ££00..

His Hoikii"- n deoroc ui-si. to bo made ali~--'i!to in throe months. v .. on.tr rod uij against iho co-rospoiidcnt i'or The question of costs was r«se:'vod for further onnsidrratio'i. The nit-mate r'ntr-rininn-tion nf the daniiiqcs j-.-.vnrcicd I y tlus jury to ho decided whoa tJ:o incnov i-s pnid into Court. This Court rose till 10 a.m. to-day. MAGISTERIAL (Before Mr T. A. B. JJaiby, S.M.) JJ3UN.K KN X K£S. A first oft'eiidor was linrd os, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. William iioniy i'oningutius was fined 4'o.i for procuring liquor during the currency of liis iiroiiibition oriier, and convicted and uischarijcd for drunkenness. CIVIL UU SIX ESS., In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs by default:—Beath and .Co., Ltd. v. Alexander Mills, £3 13s Id; .Mason, Struthors and C 0.,. Ltd. v. Stan. Jones, £1 19s 7d; same v. John "Well mail, £1 7.s (xl; Thomas Joseph Sleeman v. Charles Holmes, £9 10s; Massev, Harris Co., Ltd. v. Nita R. Hohopa. £G lis lid; same v. T. P. Rakena, £30 lGs 2d. CRAZING CHARGES. I

Arthur Beresford Earle Wilks (Mr H. D. Adand) eueel Alfred Ernest Candy for £7 18s, amount allegedly due for grazing a horse. Judgment wss given for plaintiff. A counier-claim by defendant for £7, price of a dog, was dismissed.

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. Henry Skinner (Mr Cuninyham) was successful in his claim against A. G. Larcombe for possession of a tenement withy! seven days, and los rent.