FOR THE THIRD TIME

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 122, 16 February 1921, Page 8

FOR THE THIRD TIME

YORSTON DIVORCE CASE REOPENED. For the third time the plea of John M'altei; Yorston for divorce from Ida Alay Yorston, on the ground of desertion, has come before the Supreme Court. Yesterday, before His Honour Air. Justice Chapman and a jury of twelve, vno case was reopened. The first hear.ag was about ten months ago, when, before Air. Justice Edwards, a verdict for the respondent was entered. The Full Court granted a new trial, but at the re-trial the jury failed to agree, with the result that the present action was commenced. Air. P. AV. Jackson appeared for the petitioner, and Air. H. F. Q'teary for the respondent. In outlining a fresh case for the petitioner, Air. Jackson said the parties were married in 1913, and there was one child. Tho marriage had been unhappy, bn account of the strangely cold attitude of the respondent. Actual desertion —the ground of the appeal—took place in Alarch, 1917. The respondent had left the petitioner on other occasions, said counsel, and had made the threat of desertion, which was later carried out. Petitioner would deny any allegations as to "carrying on" with another woman.

Giving evidence, tho petitioner 'Said he was an employee of the Railway Department. The respondent had lived with him at Ngahaurii.nga until September. 1916. Petitioner stated that on the day of the marriage respondent had shown dislike for him, and three days after the marriage she went to her uncle at Featherston. Slio remained there for over a month. Chi her return she showed animosity, and after an hour’s stop at Ngahauranga, she went to her people’s home in AVellington. From then on respondent went to AVellington practically every day, and made no excuse. "I had to look after my own meals,” said the witness. "Aly wife, in addition, used to go to Featherston about every second week-end.” He also said that Alien AVarehain, referred to by respondent as the woman with whom he had had an intrigue, was a friend of his wife, he having been introduced to her by *ho respondent, who invited her to the house. During the period of Miss Wareham's visit to the home there was no happiness there.

At this stage His Honour remarked that the date on the marriage certificate was different from that o.n the petition. Therefore, how could the petitioner have fixed dates in his mind, relative to the evidence, when the occurrence had taken place, according to the certificate of marriage, before the actual marriage? Mr. Jackson was granted permission to amend the dates. Further evidence was adduced similar to that given at the last hearing. Witness referred to a “fancy jockey” of the respondent, with whom she had gone out for a "joy ride." Air. O’Leary: That’s new! AVitness: I told you that last time, Mr. O'Leary.

Mr. Jackson: As long as you’re on this case. Mr. O’Leary, there will always be something new. Further evidence will te heard to-day.