DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 119, 13 February 1920, Page 8

DIVORCE COURT

.;■:;'- "v.-: — 4 " j """' FRABER V. PRASER, •• In tho Supremo Court yesterday, before Honour Mr. Justice Hoskiiig nnd a •'jury, the divorce caso of Praser v. Praser a and another was heard. '•• The,petitioner whs Donald Praser, of ' Wellington,'T.oSt and Telegraph linesman, Tvho.fipught a dissolution of his marriage with.' Jessie Praser, on the ground of respondent's alleged misconduct with one Ernest Prank Tyree. Mr. M. Myers appeared for petitioner, Mr.-J r JL-Dale for respondent, and .Mr. A.. W. Blair.for the co-respondent. Mr. A. Christensen was foreman of the jury. l Th'o parties were married at Poplar in Loudon, on June 20, 1912, and had sinco lived in Wellington. There was one child of-thomarriage. It was alleged that on June 11, 1919, respondent misconducted herself * with 'the corespondent, and it was further illeged that on various dates \ irt-the years 1917, 1918, and 1919 she mis- ■ conducted'herself with him.. 'The'petitioner stated in evidence that ho left New Zealand with tho Wireless Corps ini August,. 1916, and served in Mesopotamia. He and his wife lived togetherhintil.January, 1919, when she Ik>gan ; 'to ""treat him with indifference. He thenJeft-'her, and having heard (ertain repoffe'reg'ardfrig her relations with other roen J _)lo,_wif,h. a private detective, watched her movements. Petitioner told the Court'his'sta-y.'of what the detective and he had observed,

Other witnesses, among them the private inquiry agent, gave evidenca in support of tho petition. Respondent said that tho trouble between her and her-husband .always arose over money matters. He wanted (on his return from abroad) to give £\ a week for his board when she was paying 17s. Kd, rent and 10s. a week for a piano. Finally he" gave her :£2 per week, and sli'o Vept on asking for more, as that was not enough. He said she should give him cause for a divorce, and then ho would not have to-give her anything. Petitioner had never accused her of infidelity prior to leaving her in January last year. Sho denied absolutely of bfling guilty of misconduct with Tyree. Violet Evelyn Loveless, daughter of respondent 'by a former marriage,' stated that her mother was in bed when she got home from tho pictures between a quarter and half-past ten on the jjight of June 11. The co-respondent, who described himself as a gardener, denied the allegations of misconduct with the respondent. On Juno- 14 ho had taken a taxi out to Petone, and w-as out there during the time Mrs. Praser was alleged to have been in his house. The name of the taxidriver was Howard, and he was at pre« sent in Taranaki. ;To His Honour: Witness said he went to Petone for a ioy ride. JTo denied that Mrs. Praser had ever betn in his house, and stated positively that he did r.-ot see her on the night of Juno l-l. Counsel then addressed the jury, and it was decided that an inspection of the locality whore the misconduct was rlleged to liave taken place should be n:ade by the jury. The case was adjourned until this morning, when His Honour will' sura up. DIVORCE DAMAGES. ' • By Telcjraph-Presß Association. Wanganui, February 12. In the undefended divorce case. William C. B. T. Heatly v. Mahal E. Heatly and Joseph Wilson (a native), to-respon-dent, a, jury of twelve was empanelled to assess tne quantum of damages. Petitioner claimed ,£SOO from the co-respon-dent. The jury assessed tho damages at ,£475. The usual order was made by Mr. Justice Sim