DIVORCE CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 June 1932, Page 5

DIVORCE CASE

“EXTREMELY SORDID.” [PER press association.] . HAMILTON, June 10. Some extraordinary evidence was given in an action for divorce on the grounds of adultery heard in the Supreme Court, Hamilton. The action was brought by Edward Young, hotel porter, Hamilton,'- against his wife, Lillian Oliye Young? Sidney Williams, railway employee, from whom £3OO damages was claimed, was cited as co.-respon.dent; Petitioner stated that he was married in February, 1918, and there were two children of the marriage. Last November his wife’s feelings towards him changed, and on January 6 he sent i her to Auckland and arranged that she should stay with his mother. Respondent returned two days later than he expected, and he subsequently found that she had set up a liaison with Williams.

Evidence was led to show that Williams had spent the week-end, January 9 and 10, at an Auckland hotel, and that Mrs Young, although telling petitioner’s mother that she was staying with another woman, did not actually do so. A hotel porter gave evidence that respondent and co-re-spondent had stayed a night at the hotel where he was employed. The defence pleaded condonation. Witness stated that they had watched Young’s house, and that he had cohabited with respondent after divorce proceedings had been issued. Counsel for petitioner made pointed reference to what he described as an attempt to- spoil petitioner’s chances of getting a divorce.

His Honor referred to the case as extremely unpleasant and sordid. There was abundant evidence of misconduct, and he described the defence as extraordinary. He did not think the jury would have any difficulty in rejecting the plea of condonation: The jury gave a unanimous verdict that adultery had been committed between the respondent and the co-re-spondent, and that Young had not condoned his wife’s misconduct. By a majority of ten to two the jury awarded petitioner £3OO damages against respondent. A. decree nisi judgment for the amount awarded was entered, and petitioner was given custody of the children. The co-respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner’s costs on the highest scale