RICHARDSON DIVORCE CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 August 1933, Page 7

RICHARDSON DIVORCE CASE

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED MR. JENKINS CROSS-EXAMINED [special to “star.”] AUCKLAND, August 16. Evidence in the Richardson divorce case concluded at 4.15 p.m., after which, Mr A. H. Johnstone, counsel for Jenkins, addressed the jury. Mr R. A. Singer, for respondent, commences his address when the Court reopens to-morrow. He will be followed by Mr C. H. Weston for petitioner, after which Judge Smith sums up. It is anticipated that the jury will be out all Thursday afternoon. Jenkins’ cross-examination by Mr Weston occupied most of this afternoon. Some of the questions and answers follow.

Mr Weston: Had you been to Mrs Richardson’s house between February and March? —Yes. I think I would be there two or three times. We would play bridge. And on those occasions would you go in the night for dinner? —I think so.

You have heard me suggest that the car was a gift from you to Mrs Richardson? —Yes.

Can you give any proof that you received £5O for the car? —I can only say I got £5O from Otway on behalf of his mother. I am almost certain I gave a receipt for it. » You know it is very difficult to conceal money. Can you tell us what you did with that money?—No. I had no occasion to keep a record of what I did with the money. It was not a large amount, considering that I had transactions of large amounts. I suggest you did not get fifty pence for the car.—l received £5O. Witness added that he could not explain how the car which he sold to Mrs Richardson’s mother had been transferred in the name of respondent. It was news to him that it had been done, but probably one of the staff of the company had been responsible. Mr Weston: Will you have to find the money for a farm partnership with Mrs Richardson and her brother at Kerikeri? —Mrs Richardson will have to find the money. I cannot find any money. It may sound strange, but it is a fact. Nevertheless, I hope to borrow money from the Government. But the question is if she is to find the money whore will she find it? — That is her business. I don’t know where she is to get it. The suggestion is that her business is your business.—That isn’t so. So you don’t know where she would get the money to pay for her share of the impovements?—No, and I don’t care.

Do you tell me, if you had a spark of honour in you, and had been told as Morrison said the petitioner had informed him, that three reputable citizens would say you had been living with Mrs Richardson, would you not have gone to her and told her?— There was no association.

Visiting her home, launch trips, and motor trips. All these things. Isn’t that an association?—To the legal mind it may be. Did you not resort to the scurvy trick of suggesting misconduct to your wife (who Jenkins had said was a deeply religious woman and they did not always agree) with a gentleman whose name I will not mention?—The gentleman you refer to was an intimate ‘friend of the family. How do you know the gentleman I mean? I have not mentioned his name. Jenkins: Do I have to answer that question Your Honor. His Honor: I think it a perfectly fair question. Mr Weston did not ask it again. Mr Weston: Do you admit you told Morrison to keep his nose out of your private affairs?—No. I do not. If Morrison saw you come to bed at the Waipapakauri Hotel on the morning of March 19 at four o’clock, there would have been a reason for you telling him to keep his nose out of your private affairs. —Yes it would have been a reason if it had been true, but it wasn’t. You are one of the old fashioned sort. What were you doing in Mrs Richardson’s room at the Waipapakauri Hotel?—Well there were a lot of people in the hotel. It was the time of the race on Ninety Mile Beach. Seeing that I had a discussion with General Richardson about his son and wife and Mrs Richardson’s brother had asked me to see her, I felt that I should do so. Hffr brother was in the room with us. Morrison has stated that you did not come to bed till about four o’clock. —That is not true. It was about 10.30 or 11 p.m., when Ted and I left his sister's room. Morrison was then in bed asleep.

ADDRESSES TO JURY. [special to “star.”] AUCKLAND, August 17. In the course of his address to the Jury, Mr. A. H. Johnstone (counsel for co-respondent) said he was confident the jury could answer that the charge of misconduct nt. Waipapakauri on March 18, 19.32, had not been proved. There could be no possible foundation for the belief that Jenkins in any way influenced the respondent to leave her home. Petitioner had commenced an affair which had lasted to the present day. From January, 1931, he was secretly engaged. From that time he had concentrated his mind on marrying the girl, and the only way to do that was first to get a divorce. “What then did he lose in his wife?” asked counsel. “Nothing!” This was not a traditional ease of some Lothario stealing away the affections of a wife, but. a case of a man who wanted to get rid of his wife, and at the same time get £lOOO. He could not have his cake and eat it. Counsel said that he would submit, the petitioner could not point to any scrap of evidence that there was a disposition on the part of respondent and co-respond-ent to commit misconduct.

“Morrison was the informer,” said Mr. Johnstone. ‘‘lt was he who poured poison into the greedy ears of Richardson. I put it to you, did he inform in the sacred interests of justice and truth, or was he influenced bj r the fact that he had lost his job, and had a grievance against Jenkins?”

• Mr L. A. Singer, for respondent, began his address to the jury by scathingly criticising matters which had been brought into the case,, in the cross-examination of Mrs Richardson

and Jenkins. He said the proceedings brought bv Richardson against his wife were’both dishonourable and untrue, and were part of the pursuit of respondent by Richardson and his “jackals.” He had been shocked as no doubt the jury had been 'shocked to hear some of the matters touched upon, matters which could only reflect upon the honesty and genuineness of Richardson. “I challenge you to say the charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubt in this case. I go further and say that not only has Richardson failed to prove his allegation, but no decent man would believe it true.” Counsel dealt with the evidence for the petitioner in detail, and characterised it as the flimsiest ever brought before a Court, in such a grave charge. It was not a matter of whether the jury should think petitioner and respondent would be better apart, but whether she had committed adultery with co-respondent. “Richardson, he asserted, is full of subterfuges and tricks, and will go to any length to get von to give him his freedom.” air C. H. Weston for the petitioner,followed Mr Singer, but he had not completed his address by the luncheon adjournment. It is expected now, that the jury will be out all the afternoon. air Weston said the question was whether airs Richardson and Jenkins had gone beyond the limits of mere friendship. He asked them to consider not only the evidence of what was alleged to have occurred on the night of March 18, 1932, but the present relationship between airs Richardson and Jenkins. “We suggest,” said air Weston, “that it is not an innocent friendship, but is an illicit one, and that Jenkins and airs Richardson are lover and mistress. If Jenkins had been an honourable man he would, when he heard of the rumours, have kept away from this attractive young married woman. He had even been told that three reputable persons would say that he and airs Richardson had been living beyond the bound of friendship, airs Richardson had left her husband, given up her home, ajid everything for him, and had gone too far, and Jenkins had to stick to her.”