DIVORCE CASE

Evening Star, Issue 22973, 2 June 1938, Page 16

DIVORCE CASE

ADULTERY DENIED AUCKLAND, June 1. The hearing was continued in the Supreme Court of a claim for £I,OOO damages arising out of a divorce action on the grounds of alleged adultery. The case in question is Donald v. Donald, with David' Brideson cited as co-respondent. Damages are claimed from Brideson. The respondent, Mrs Donald, said she had known the Bridesons for 25 years, and had been a constant friend of Mrs Brideson for 17 years. Brideson owned a racing track, and she did a little gambling with him. After the incident at Orakei on March 22, 1937, her husband tried to get her to leave, and she did so. A fortnight later she went to Brideson’s temporarily, and the arrangement was that she rented a house from Brideson, and he paid her £3 a week for board for himself and for his man. There was another boarder at present. Witness denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. She said her husband had said that if she would give him £IOO that would square everything. Witness said she had been getting about £4 a week from her husband before they parted. She always attended the trotting meetings at Auckland. She did not ask for maintenance from her husband because she was able to keep herself as she had done before. The co-respondent, Brideson, denied that he had ever committed adultery with the respondent or had been guilty of_ any act of familiarity, or impropriety. He denied in detail the evidence for the petitioner. The case was adjourned until tomorrow, when His Honour will sum up.