EVER WANTED SEPARATION

Evening Star, Issue 22671, 10 June 1937, Page 13

EVER WANTED SEPARATION

THE RADLEY CASE EVIDENCE OF WIFE OPPOSITION TO ABSOLUTE DEGREE [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, June 10. That she had never at any time been desirous of separation from her husband, and still wished to return to him was the final statement made by Dorothy Whaley Radley, in her evi-dence-in-chief in the Supreme Court this morning in the case in which the Solicitor-General intervened to oppose the moving absolute of a decree nisi made in November last year on the petition of Geoffrey Squire Radley, fruit and produce merchant, formerly of Auckland, and now of Christchurch. Cross-examined by Mr G. P. Finlay, for petitioner, witness said that up to 1927 her married life as a whole was happy, but after that it was disturbed. She did not think she was responsible for the disturbance, although would not say she was always sweet and affectionate. The reason she went to Christchurch after the separation was to be near her children, and with the hope of winning her husband hack. She denied that she went to Christchurch in order to carry out a certain idea and destroy the force of the separation. ■ She admitted that she had become bound by the agreement, but said she had not wished to separate. She kept her two diaries to record events, not to enable her to defeat the separation order. Questioned about “ Mrs X,” she said that when she began to suspect that her husband was seeing more of “ Mrs X ” than was desirable, she thought that if “ Mr X ” was transferred elsewhere, it would end the trouble. She did not go to the firm employing “ Mr X ” and endeavour to get him dismissed from life job. Witness did not remember having physical combat with her husband on the boat returning from England in 1920. She denied that she had frequently attacked him, and disagreed with counsel’s contention that she was a profound exponent of women’s rights. Sho denied that she was an atheist. She admitted that none of her children were baptised, but that was not because she ridiculed religion. Replying to Mr Finlay, witness said, “ I am still fond of my husband, and 'would go back to him now.”-