ACTION FOR DIVORCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 July 1939, Page 9

ACTION FOR DIVORCE

BOY RAJA AS CO-RESPONDENT.

LONDON, May 27

Raja Mohamed, nephew and adopted son of the former Sultan of Perak, was cited as co-respondent by Mr Bernard Preedy, formerly headmaster of a school at Kuala Kangsar, Perak, who was granted a decree nisi in the Divorce Court yesterday. Mr Preedy, now an officer in the Education Department of the Federated Malay States, petitioned for divorce from Mrs Lilian Josephine Preedy, on the ground’ of her adultery with Raja Mohamed, who was formerly a pupil at Mr Preedy’s school. Frequent acts of adultery between the wife and co-respondent, and specifically on April 15, 16 and 17, 1937, at the School House were alleged. Mrs Preedy contested the petition, denying her husband’s allegations. Raja Mohammed did not appear to defend.

The marriage was at Torpoint, Cornwall, in August, 1927, when the husband was 32 and the wife 21.

Mr Justice Hodson, giving judgment said that in 1937 the husband was suffering from neurasthenia. In 1932 Mrs Preedy left her husband in Malaya and came home. Mr Preedy said that she did so declaring that she intended to leave him for good.

She did not admit that, and stated that she went home because she was ill, intending to return to her husband, and that she corresponded with him for a time.

She said 1 that in October that year she set out to rejoin him, and only turned back because he told her to go home.

“I believe that the separation was brought about by Mrs Preedy’s wish to leave him, and that she told him afterwards that she wanted a divorce and said that there was material on which she could .be divorced.” Mr Justice Hodson added, “Nothing, however, was done and the parties lived apart until 1936-”

During the separation Mr Preedy voluntarily paid his wife an allowance which was not ungenerous. He saw her on one or two occasions in 1935, when he was home on leave, and she rejoined him in Malaya in 1936.

The judge said he was unable to accept the wife’s statement that, having invited her to come back, her husband at once turned against her with hatred, and made it plain that he wanted no more to do with her.

They lived together, not in great harmony, in 1936 and the early part of 1937- During this time the wife’s association with Raja Mohamed began.

Raja Mohamed had been a pupil at the school while Mrs Preedy was in England. I-Ie began to take his wife out riding, and M'r Preedy’s suspicions were aroused in March, 1937. On March 31 the husband consulted his solicitors. Acting on thefr advice, the following day he asked Mrs Preedy if she had misconducted herself with Raja Mohammed. She replied that she had not, and that he was a “nicemannered boy.”

Mr Justice Hodson said that on April 9 sho went to Penang for three days without her husband. She was the're in the society of the co-respon-dent, but there was no allegation that they committed adultery there. On the day the wife returned from Penang her husband went into hospital suffering from neurasthenia. He was a man who kept control of his feelings, and was no doubt suffering a very considerable strain.

Mr Justice Hodson believed he was genuinely suffering from neurasthenia, and not engaged, as the wife said, in laying a trap to ensnare her with the co-respondent or any other man. That night the co-respondent stayed in Mr Preedy’s bungalow. By that time the co-respondent was in love with Mrs Preedy to her knowledge ,and she was, at any rate, fond of him. They were in constant association tor the next few days. Mrs Preedy isited her husband in hospital, but did not disclose the extent of her association with the corespondent, or the fact that he had stayed all night in the bungalow. Eventually Mr Preedy told his wife ho was coming home on April 18. In fact, he returned on April 17. BEDROOM DOOR FORCED. The evidence of that day represented the climax in the case. Mrs Preedy had stated that the co-respondent came to the house that night because she was frightened to be alone. It was hardly an adequate explanation; she could surely have gone to the house of some friends.

When Mr Preedy returned' home with a friend, a Mr Walker, they went to the bedroom, and considerable force was used to open the door. When they got in Mrs Preedy was not in the bedroom. She was in an inner room, called the “mosquito room,” and was asked if there was anyone else in the room. She said there was not.

Mr Preedy looked round and saw tho co-respondent crouching near a dressing table. Tho co-respondent’s slippers were outside the door, and on seeing that he was discovered lie said, “Sorry, sir,” and bolted as fast as he could, knocking over something in the hall. Mrs Preedy had said that the corespondent’s visit that night was absolutely innocent and that what happened was that he had promised to take her to the opera, but arrived dishevelled and late owing to a cricket match, and' desired a bath. He went into the bathroom, while she was outside all the time.

Mrs Preedy had also said that the co-respondent did not run out when her husband arrived.

In regard to Mrs Preedy’ conduct, Mr Justice Hodson said that she did not, |at the time, attempt to give her husband the explanation she had now given. She acted as if she had been caught in the act.

She first of all declared her love for the co-respondent and her intention of marrying him, and also referred to her husband’s conduct as being some justification for her action. .She also did that again in a letter she wrote that night to Mr Walker saying she would do anything she could to right the wlrong she had done “the boy,” and not trying to excuse her conduct.

On May 10, when going to England, Mrs Preedy wrote:

“The chief reason I took the poison was because I thought that, if I died, the Raja would be able to keep his job. ... I didn’t want to be responsible for the ruin of his career.” “f feel satisfied beyond doubt that adultery has been committed,” remarked Mr Justice Hodson, who added that it was a case in which the husband could ask for the exdrcise of the Court’s discretion.

“During his wife’s absence in England he did commit adultery with

native women on occasions, but he disclosed this to his wife on lu r return, and he has disclosed it to the C'mirl." The judge said, “I see no rqason why there should be any refusal of a divorce on that account.” Mr Justice Hodson, who exercised his discretion in favour of Mr Preedy, granted him costs against the corespondent.