SECRET MARRIAGE

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 121, 16 February 1926, Page 6

SECRET MARRIAGE

A STRANGE STORY DIVORCE ACTION; ’ FAILS By Telegbafh.—PkEss Association Auckland, February 15. A strange story of a man and woman entering into marriage and keeping the matter secret for a number of years, and the wife’s refusal to permit her husband to tell her people, was told in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Stringer and a jury by petitioner in a- defended divorce action. Eric Harold Clouston (represented by Mr. West) sought dissolution of his marriage with Hilda Clouston (for whom Mr. Moody appeared) on the ground of misconduct. Robert Knight (Mr. Singer) was cited as co-respondent. Mr. West said that the case was simple in its essence. The only point was -whether misconduct had taken place. The parties were married on April 10, 1918. Petitioner was then 24 years of age, and respondent 22. The co-respondent, Robert Knight, was a waterside worker, and the jury had to decide whether respondent committed misconduct with him on the night oi September 29, 1925, at Point Erm Park. The previous life of the parties was peculiar. Respondent insisted from the time she was married that she should maintain her status as a single woman. She also insisted that her father should not know of the marriage. The couple spent a holiday together, but did not occupy the same room. On their return to Auckland they lived at their respective homes. Later petitioner informed his people of the marriage. This condition- of affairs continued until, tn despair of moving his wife from hetset state of mind, petitioner told her father of the marriage. That made no difference to respondent and they continued to live as usual. Up to tins time petitioner had not had any suspicions of his wife. He allowed her 30s. per week, but she had been working as a waitress. Last year he decided that as she would not make a home with him he would go for a separation. She refused to let him do that. About this time his suspicions became aroused. In August, 1925, she took a position in an hotel as a waitress, and one day he met her in company with a man. IJe watched her, and in company with a private inquiry agent followed respondent and a man to Point Erin Park. It was here on the night of September 29 that petitioner would say he saw misconduct take place. Petitioner gave evidence on the same lines as his counsel’s statement. To Mr. Moody: “I did not offer my wife £3O not to defend the action. 1 offered her nothing.” Witness denied that he had taken her out since September 29. He admitted that he did not have a home for her. His Honour; Why didn’t you make a home instead of taking her up to the Domain and Mount Eden ? Petitioner: She would not let me get a home. To Mr. Moody; I did not take her up Mount Eden six days before filing the petition. I will deny any statement her brother-in-law makes as to my being frequently with my wife since the proceedings.' Mr. Singer said that it was a matter of comment that witness continued to go out with his wife and obtain marital rights. Both respondent and co-respondent, giving evidence, emphatically denied the alleged misconduct. Respondent said that from the day of the wedding petitioner had kept both the wedding ring and marriage certificate.. She had from the first offered to live with her husband anywhere if he would only provide a home. He had not given her anything like 30s. a week; indeed, any money at all he had given her had been in driblets of a few shillings. He had had intimate relations with her up to January 30 last. It was at Clouston’s suggestion that the marriage was kept secret

The jury, after retirement for seven minutes, found that misconduct did not take place on .September 29, and the petition was dismissed with costs to respondent and co-respondent.