RICHARDSON DIVORCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 August 1933, Page 5

RICHARDSON DIVORCE

WIFE CONTINUES EVIDENCE

SERIES OF DENIALS [SPECIAL TO “STAR.”] AUCKLAND, August 14. Continuing her evidence, in the Richardson divorce case, this afternoon, the respondent, stated that following the night at. Wajpapakuri Hoteh she and her brother set out to Auckland, and on the way met a friend who told them they could not possibly get through to Whangarei that night, so they decided to stop the night at Rangiahau, where they' arrived at 5 p.m. After dinner at the hotel, respond-

ent and her brother were in the sitting room listening to the wireless, and at 9.30, Jenkins and Morrison came in. Respondent knew that since she saw him the previous day, Jenkins had been to Tepaki Station. Jenkins told her he had seen her husband. After Jenkins had had something to eat,, he joined her and her brother' in the sitting room, where they talked till 10.30 p.m., when respondent went upstairs to bed. The next morning, her brother came to her room, and said that as she had done all the driving and had a hard time, Jenkins had suggested her going to Auckland in his ear. with him.

She agreed, and all four, her brother and Morrison in one car, and she and Jenkins in another, left for Auckland about ten o’clock. Except that they

opped for lunch, they came straigh

through, and she arrived home at Devonport at 6.30 p.m. Jenkins had a cup of tea and left at 8.30 p.m.

Continuing her evidence, respondent said her husband did not admit to her he was in Jove with Betty Kember. It was on July 26 of last year, when she filed the petition, for restitution of conjugal rights. Jenkins had nothing

whatever to do with it. Counsel (Mr R. A. Singer): Al whose instance, or, at whose request did you file the petition?—At my husband’s.

Were you prepared to go back to him on July 11, when you wrote to him? —Yes. Witness said she brought proceed-

ings against her husband in the Magistrate’s Court for maintenance of the children, and he consented to pay 15/a week for each child. The decree for restitution was made on August 18, 1932. Her husband did not comply with it, and she petitioned for a divorce, on the ground that he had failed to comply with it. In November, she had a discussion with her husband about, her own maintenance. That, was after she had signed the petition for divorce. “I told him I would not go on with my divorce petition, unless he gave me maintenance. He said he wouldn’t give me any money, and that, he would rather go to gaol. I have not seen him since until he walked into Court on Wednesday last.” Counsel: Both your brothers, Ted and Keith, are friends of Jenkins, are they not?—Yes. There is a .veiled suggestion that you have gone down to the Shenandoh, Jenkins’ launch, alone at. night, when she has been tied up at Davenport wharf. Have you been on the Shenandoh alone?

Respondent, said that she had been on the Shenandoh on four occasions, but. there were always several friends of hers with her. Her mother and brother were always in the party. Jenkins had never slept at her house. Referring to the occasion when her mother “took the Crow’s Nest” at Titirangi, respondent said her mother’s baby car was always there, during her stay, and frequently her brother’s car was outside,.. Respondent said that after her application for maintenance had been struck out, because Mr Hunt decided her husband had no means to pay, she noticed an area of land advertised for sale at Kerikeri, and having come to love outdoor life, she and her sister went, to have a look at it. with

the idea of buying if it should be suitable .for citrus fruit growing. She also asked her brother to have a look at it, and eventually another area was bought. Her mother gave respondent’s brother £4O or £5O to pay for a share for respondent. She did not know how Jenkins came into the transaction.

You know the parties to the agreement to purchase are yourself, your brother and Jenkins?—Yes.

Has anybody except your mother provided any of the money to pay for your interest in the property?—No. Was there anything sinister in your relations with Jenkins at any time? — No.

Have you ever kissed him, or he kissed you?—No. • Have you ever been for a walk with him?—No.

Has there ever, at any time, been impropriety of any kind between you and Jenkins?—No.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

BREACH OF PROMISE RECALLED

[special to “star.”]

AUCKLAND, August 15. Tn the Richardson divorce case, today, Mrs. Richardson was cross examined by Mr. C. H. Weston, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Weston: What was the idea of taking a private detective to Tepaki? Respondent: I wanted to inquire into the truth of certain rumours. Did you suggest that the detective should tempt your husband by saying he should invite two girls to the station? —On my honour 1 did not. I put it to you that, in your own mind, you were guilty of illicit association with Jenkins, and you wished to see your husband in the same box? — No.

After the detective failed, you took proceedings for divorce in another way?—l did not want a divorce, and I don’t, care if I never get one. Did you believe that Mrs. Jenkins would divorce Jenkins? —No. I did not. think so, and I. do not think so for a moment.

I put it to you that your solicitor agreed with your husband that you should take divorce proceedings, as you are a woman. Is that not true?— I suppose it is. Why did you not go on with those divorce proceedings?—Because my husband told me he would not give me maintenance and that he would rather go to gaol. Was it not that you realised by this time that Jenkins could not get a divorce and you wanted to keep one

man rather than lose both? —No it is a lie. ■ Petitioner’s counsel next asked Mrs. Richardson about a breach of promise case, for which counsel suggested a writ was issued on her behalf in July 1925, claiming £2OOO. Respondent: That’s not true. All I wanted was a refund of expenses in providing my trousseau. The matter was settled in November 1925. and I eceived £350. In further answers, respondent, said she still believed that her husband had been consorting with Maori women. It was a pure accident she went to Waipapakauri Hotel to stay (to save pitching a tent on the beach), and also that Jenkins happened to be in the same hotel that night, and that they both stopped at a hotel at Rangiahua the next night. Counsel: Who paid for your board at Waipapakauri?- My brother. Counsel: The licensee says that Jenkins paid.—Don’t believe anything Thode (the licensee) says, because he’s telling a lie. He also said that Jenkins arrived at Waipapakauri Hotel after my brother and myself, which is also untrue.

Re-examined by Mr. IL A. Singer, respondent said she saw petitioner near one o’clock last Sunday afternoon, walking towards the vehicular ferry with Miss Keniber, and Richardson had an arm around her waist.