IN DIVORCE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 45, 17 November 1920, Page 2

IN DIVORCE

A MATTER OF HANDWRITING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEUDING CASE Hearing of the Peat ilivoree ease was coninueil in .the Supreme Court yesterday before Ills Honour'-Mr. Justice Edwards] and a j '\i'y of twelve, Tim proceedings amso from' n petition for divorce by Karcourt Eugene Lewis Peat, of Fcilding, against Dorothy. lidith Peat, oil tho ground of wlnltory. William JieauchainpI'latU, of Wellington, was named as corespondent. Siv John Find'la.v, IC.C,, with him Mr. W. I'orry, appeared for Hie petitioner, and "Mr.' A. Ongley for tl|p .respondent. Tho • co-respondcht was repiresoiitad by Mr. C. P," Skorrett, K.C., with! him Mr. D. M. Findlay. The petitioner also claims JGlOflO damages.

In liis re-examination by Sir John Findlay yeslerdiiy, .the petitioner denied that a prior engagement to his mnrringo with the rospomlcntVhad heen broken oil on tho ground of misconduct. He understood thatf.flin'cc'.the beginning of the present, proceedings certain . allegations had been levelled at him. Although liis lesources were .severely taxed, petitioner said ho'had always allowed his wife ftfc least ,£7O a year for her personal expenses. This was certainly n heavy drain on his finances. ,' ' 1 Anna Lanaiize, i.of Christcliurch, said she had met Mrs.' Peat in Cliristehurefi . >in 1918." She'lmd Veep introduced to her bv a Mrs. Ritliino, 'who was a'lso a rusident of ChristclHirch. Witness had seep the respondent in"tearooms with the corespondent. Eariy i« 1919 the respondent had again visited Mrs. l?"bino, and witness, had on several occasions seen her. With regard to men Wends ,of Sfe. Pe»it, to witness's own''kn&ttTfe l 5 8 > ferre'd to (hem as women, .WteS JjWJI by the, names of "Phyllis, . Bertha, aiid "Plattie." ■ Witness said ftK? An.WV lliat respondent had spoken of clhOß one mimo from "Phyllis" • to as it. was advisable. Sirs.. Peat did not appear to bo very fond of her husband:, and often had mado references to other moil, saying that while they were all nice, tliere' was none so nice as "Phyllis.Witness admitted that the respondent .lm<l appeared anxious- to obtain letters that- she had written to Mrs. Euhinii. . The letters were formally identified as being in the handwriting of the rcsponTo Mr. Ongley: Witness said that after receiving .letters..written utter the parties had . separated, she concluded .that the respondent desired a divorco, and that [ieauclianip-I'la-tts would ho named as tho co-rosptindent.. ""I <>o not think the corespondent. was in (Jliristchurch during Mrs. Peat's second, visit," added the witness-. Slin further stated that on onti occasion in Christcliurch, a certain lady doctor had introduced the respondent to a vowng innn as "Miss Audrey. Wltnai* dill not lcnnw whether the man had later been told that respondent was a mamort woman. "It w.as just following tins thni she mentioned 'Bertha' in a letter to mo. added witness. ' , , ... Sir. -Skorrett: Could you not see that "Bertha,'.' "Phyllis," and ' Plattio" were one and the same .person P ' Witness: Yes. I inferred as much, Evidence touching on the visit; of tha respondent to Christchuroh was given I"renk Antonio Kiihino. of the Post- OHica Pavings Bank. Christcliurch. This witness said that his wifo (tnnco dead) anrt Mrs. Peat were related by marriage, una were, great friends, "In April or M a .v* 1919" t=jud vihiess, "respondent 6tnyea with m'tor nhont VU* niizht previous to her depurviire she said she was going to a friend's: house at Fendalton, wliore she knew n Mrs. Lner-sc-v." Buhino said that a leUcr he had found in his house, in respondent s handwriting, evidently referred-to a Col f. i J. l " man called I>y® woman siiaina name given was either Phyllis or "Bertha," but of this the witness was riot oositive-. There was an-enclosure in the Fetter addressed to his wife. At the end of tho 1919 visit, respondent had asked witness for the letters, hut ho said then that he could not find Ihem. il ' (> J"®! 8 were 'that lie had destroyed tho letters, but had retained the enclosure. • ' To Air Skerrett,' witness said that n* d as lie could: -remember a let ter .found (in the sofa: was signed Dorothy, ' Mr Skerrett. The-letters are improper hV thought, but not indecent in thoir °FoWowing a question hy Mr. SkerreU, whether witness had ever mili-mtv with respondent, Jiubmo em n'haticnllv denied any such action or InFcliiiion. llc lintl merely Kopt 'the onclc, «Mres referred to out of curiosity. evidenco as, to ilie handwriting of an anonvnious letter »'' d ™ alleucd to have been written by tho co jSdent, was given hy Walter Dinnie, ex-Commissioner of Police. time' a handwriting expert at bcounna Yard. From his liivesttsations. the cxnlanatory detail of which occupied the Ci ~iLt- n f the afternoon, witness Mini he was of opinion that the of tho as produced «as similar to. that contained m the anonymFurtherteevidence on thifl point' was ■rifen hv Homy Philip Mourant accountantalso nil expert in handwriting, who based his knowledge of cohgrnphy on K Si them. However, on, a cursory uiittcii . wnnld that the liMid- ™ different .people; hut this view was changed on closer inV At S tht"6tage the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m to-day. .