UNHAPPY HOME

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 35, 10 February 1926, Page 10

UNHAPPY HOME

UNUSUAL DIVORCE DEFENCE

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

The unusual defence to a divorce petition, that the petitioner had by his own conduct induced the admitted adultery on which, the petition was basud, was made at the Supreme Court this morning before his Honour the ■ Chief Justice (Mr. C. P.'Skerrett).

The petitioner was Edward Adams, a Corporation employee, the respondent Margaret Stella Adams, and the corespondent was Claes Olsen. Mr. M. P. Luckie appeared on behalf of- they petitioner, and Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell for the respondent. \

Mr. Luckie said the parties were married in 1913. They lived-together for many years, though differences arose between them through her drinking habits. A deed of separation was made ill 1924. Payments were made by the petitioner regularly. Adultery took place between respondent and Olsen from January until May, 1925, but the petitioner did not knoHv of this until November, 11)25.

The adultery was admitted, by the defence, but the respondent alleged that the petitioner left the house for'flays when Olsen was a louder, giving bo reason for going and offering no explanations on his return. The respondent alleged that the petitioner constantly brought liquor to the house, which became a drinking den. The petitioner was, away at Christmas for a week. On New Year's Eve petitioner said be would stay at home if respondent and Olsen bought a gallon of beer. The beer was bought, but petitioner ' left them in the street saying: "You take her home. I am going to have a good time myself." The petitioner did not return until the following evening. Petitioner also brought ft Chinaman, to whom* he was in debt, to the'house to stay from Saturday until Monday. Petij tioner immediately left again and did not return for two days, respondent having to supply meals to the Chinaman. The respondent alleged that tbe petitioner deserted her 6n 21st March, 1924, a»d she was later put into the street, as the rent had not been paid. Subsequently a deed of separation was ontcred into, but petitioner had allowed payments to fall,into arrears. Evidence on the lines of Ms counsel* statements was given by the petitioner. (Proceeding.)