RICHARDSON DIVORCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 August 1933, Page 7

RICHARDSON DIVORCE

WIFE’S EVIDENCE COMPLETED BROTHER'S CORROBORATION [special to “star.”] AUCKLAND, August 15. In the Richardson divorce case, this afternoon, respondent was re-examined by Mr R. A. Singer, who asked: Prior to your misfortune in meeting your husband, had you been engaged to a gentleman?—Yes, for four years. Had the date of the marriage been arranged?—Yes, April 3, 1925. Respondent added that when the date of the wedding was settled, arrangements were made, and the guests invited. About a week before April 3, she received a cable from him in code. It was decoded in a town office here. The real words of the cable were: “Useless you come, intend marry loyal girl.” The cable was decoded “Unless you come, intend marry loyal girl.” She and her aunt went to see him, and got a very poor reception. She' had spent between £3OO and £4OO on her trousseau and linen. On returning to New Zealand she was advised by 1 a very eminent man in law to consult 1

a solicitor. She did so and instructed her solicitor that all she wanted was to be repaid for what she had expend-

ed. (As previously reported witness got £350 for this). “Before he died we were the best of friends,” added the respondent. Did you instruct your solicitor to sue for £2OOO? —No. Would you have ever gone to court? —No.

And this man could have given you a home and position equal if not better than the man you did marrv?-— Yes. It has been said that you were in some way dazzled by Jenkins. Was he ever more than a decent friend to you?—No. Respondent then left the box. Her evidence and cross-examination had taken 9J hours. The next witness for the' defence, Redvers Otway (brother of the respondent) gave his version of what happened after he and his sister left Ninety Mile Beach for Devonport via Waipapakauri and Rangiahua hotels. Mr Singer; Have you seen at any

time the faintest familiarity between your sister and Jenkins?—No, I have

Who paid the expenses for your sister and yourself at Waipapakauri and Rangiahua?—l did. Cross-examined by Mr C. H. Weston, witness said he was the only permanent member of the Shenandoah’s crew. It would be about December, 1931, after Mrs Richardson had separated from her husband that he joined the crew.

When you left the Ninety Mile Beach it w*as your intention to go to Kaitaia?—l didn’t want to go so far, knowing the condition my sister was in. Witness, |tinswering further questions, said Jenkins was not a drinking man. Witness said he had no difficulty in remembering what occurred at Waipapakauri Hotel. That was, the essential details.

Mr Weston: Has it occurred to you

that after a lapse of 14 months, the story told by your sister and the story told bj r you are exactly the same word for word. —I don’t know about that, it is the truth. CO-RESPONDENT'S VERSION. [special to “stab.”] AUCKLAND, August 16. In the Richardson divorce case, this morning, Harry Reginald Jenkins, in evidence, said he was the largest shareholder and chairman of directors ol! a company formed to acquire the Tepaki property for production of Tung oil. He was introduced to the respondent just after her husband was appointed to the Tepaki station. At the second' visit to Tepaki, Mrs Richardson was there. She acted as hostess. He noticed that the circumstances of the married life were such that Mrs Richardson might become discontented, and on return to Auckland he told the petitioner’s father (Sir George Richardson) his views. Witness went to England in August, 1931. Shortly after his return he heard that Mrs Richardson had left Tepaki. He wrote to the petitioner’s father and said he was concerned for the Company, and wanted' to feel sure that there was no scandal connected with it. He received an assurance that there was not. Respondent asked, through her brother, if she could see witness. He declined to see her until he had heard the husband’s side of it. He saw petitioner’s father in February, 1932. The latter gave him a letter to take to petitioner. The letter advised petitioner to confide in witness, and tell him all about the cause of th e wife’s leaving him. Jenkins, on producing the letter to petitioner, undertook to see the wife, and give her some fatherly advice, explaining that it was very necessary to remain on good terms with Richardson.

Witness said he was about to raise £300,000 in London, and would not have wanted petitioner’s father to resign (from the enterprise connected with the raising of this money). Referring to incidents at Waipapakauri Hotel, Jenkins declared that it was fully 9 o’clock when he found Mrs Richardson was staying there for the night. Jenkins strenuously denied misconduct. with Mrs Richardson at Waipapakauri, adding: “Nor at any other time. I am not an immoral man.”

Witness said he was endeavouring to sell a car he had used on the trip hack from Tepaki (when he and Mrs Richardson had stopped at Waipapakauri and Rangiata) and eventually he traded it in with a firm for a “baby” car. The latter was later sold to Mrs Richardson (senr.) for £5O. It was true that respondent had gone several trips on his launch Shenandoah. Her brother, Ted Otway, was a member of the crew, and went on all the trips. Never at any time was witness out in the launch with Mrs Richardson alone. Very often if no party had been arranged, witness -would invite Mrs Richardson to bring her people out. REPLIES TO COUNSEL. In the course of his examination by Mr Singer (counsel for respondent), Jenkins said he did not see Airs Richdardson after being introduced to her in January, or February, 1931, until he went to Tepaki in May. He knew nothing of a private detective going up

with Mrs Richardson and her brother, until he heard of it afterwards. Cross-examined by Mr Weston (for petitioner): Will you, agree with me that the keynote of the case is the Christmas trip you took with your own wife and family in 1931, and the Christmas trip you took with Mrs Richardson’s family in 1932?—N0. it is not.

You don’t agree that in twelve months' time, your wife and family were supplanted by Mrs Richardson? —No.

You were shocked by the letters of Miss Kember? —Yes. Would it be that you are old-fash-ioned?—l prefer to be old-fashioned that way. Are you aware that an attractive young married woman is a source of danger ?—Not to me. She would be regarded as an electric wire, and anybody giving her attention would be liable to get hurt? —- Not to me.

You were a grass-widower, were you not?—l know what you infer. It is not true. Mrs Jenkins and myself have always been on the best terms. (Proceeding.)