DIVORCE PETITION

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 August 1933, Page 7

DIVORCE PETITION

EX-M.P. AS CO-RESPONDENT

HUSBAND’S ADMISSIONS [SPECIAL TO “STAR.”] AUCKLAND, August 9. Alleging that his wife, Mona Mary Richardson, had on March 18 of last year, committed adultery with Harry Reginald Jenkins, company director, at Waipapakauri Hotel, Kenneth Rahiri George Richardson, to-day, petitioned for a divorce, and claimed £lOOO damages from Jenkins. Mrs Richardson and Jenkins both deny the allegation of misconduct. Petitioner, giving evidence, told of the occasion when subsequent to his

wife leaving him, a man who said he wanted to buy bonds, but who the petitioner later understood was a private detective, had suggested getting some girls up to the place, but petitioner would not entertain the suggestion and ordered the man off the property. A few days later, petitioner and a man named Rust, noticed a yellow car which acted mysteriously. There were .two people in it, and whenever petitioner and his companion attempted to investigate, the car would drive off. Maoris working on the station complained that they were frightened of the yellow car. Eventually he came upon the car with his wife and her brother in it. He took

them to the homstead near the Ninety Mile Beach. Seeing the reputation the yellow car had gained, it was a shock to him to find his wife in it. Next day, she called at the homestead and during a heated discussion said she would return to him and make his life a hell. However, later, she said she would not return to him, and accused him of being in love with another girl, and having agreed to marry her. About 3.30 that afternoon he saw her drive off in the yellow car. That was on March 18. On the following day, the co-respondent, H. R. Jenkins (ex M.P. for Parnell) arrived and inspected the property and expressed satisfaction with work done. He (Richardson) was working for co-respondent. Jenkins also mentioned he had seen Mrs Richardson, who had complained that petitioner had been drinking and carrying on with Maori women, and that she was going to sue for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and negligence.

His Honor: Negligence? That is new ground of action for divorce.

Petitioner said he asked Jenkins if knowing the petitioner as he did, he thought the wife’s accustations were

justified. Jenkins said he did not. That day petitioner realised for the first time that the yellow car belonged to Jenkins. He said he thought it was in February or March, that he first heard of what he now alleged occurred on March IS of last, year at Waipapakauri Hotel. CROSS-EXAMINATION. Mr Singer for respondent: When did the unpleasantness commence between you and your wife? —The first year of our marriage. Long before either you or your wife knew Jenkins? —Yes. Did you ever threaten to kill her? —Never. If she says you would sulk for a couple of weeks what would you say? —lt is false. Did you not leave her room and occupy another room a fortnight before she left?—Yes, but I went back before she left. At Te Paki how far away from your place did any white woman live? — Ten miles. Do you remember the night before you left? —Quite well. Did you go into her room, tear up your photograph, smash the frame and knock over a vase? —It is quite false. Not a word of truth in it. It was the next day, but I did not smash the photo frame. Mr Singer then produced a letter written on November 9 by respondent’s brother to respondent, in which he referred to petitioner as “a skunk for throwing up your deafness.”. The writer also referred to petitioner as being “weak” and expressed the opinion that in a few years she would be “ditched.”

Mr Singer: When did you want a divorce? —I never did. On November 18 you write and ask your wife to “buck up” and come back to you and on November 24, six days later, you write another letter telling her you intended seeing a lawyer in regard to getting a separation?—That was discussed before we left in March, 1932.

How many girls were corresponding with you?—One or two.

I think I have four letter here. When did you destroy the others? —I can’t tell you. Was it not after you knew your wife had possession of one? —I don’t think so.

When did the young lady who wrote these letters (produced) come up to your place at Tepaki?—ln December, 1931.

She came to your place with your parents?—Yes. How long did she stay there? —Ten days. And when did she cease writing to you?—She writes now. And you to her? —Yes.

So you still write to each other? — Yes. THE OTHER WOMAN. Mr Singer then read a letter written by “Betty Kimber,’’ a girl who had been at Tepaki. Mr Singer read another letter in which the writer (Miss Betty Kimber) urged the petitioner to proceed with a divorce and stated that she “could live on the smell of toheroa” as long as she was with him. Petitioner said he would admit she wanted to marry him and be wanted to marry her. He was very fond of her but he was not secretly engaged to her. Two more letters were read by Mr Singer. Among other things they stated: “I love you, and I am dying to be married to you, however extraordinary that may seem,” and “how about getting one of your old Hawke’s Bay friends to come up and play the part of co-respondent?” Mr Singer: Were you not writing to her on the subject of a divorce? —I don’t know. I suppose so. Did you tell her you were instituting these proceedings for divorce? —I do not know. Did you write and tell her? —I must have written. Do you think you have suffered any