AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9585, 1 September 1913, Page 2

AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

EVIDENC E FOR THE DEFENCE

(i'KB rKESS AsSCCI'IICN.)

AI CKLANI). Aug. 28.

The hearing of the .suit for. divorce brought l>v William llcnry Paterson of hits wife Mabel Kathleen Fat orson and Gustav Kronfcld was continued at the Supreme Conn.

Counsel, in sketching tiie story of respondent's life in the story, said that she bogged her husband over and over again to give her an allowance. Petitioner, lie said, was a man of mean*, Counsel was instructed that lie was probably worth £30.000. Respondent also repeatedly begged petitioner, said Mr Heed, to let her iiave a servant. lie replied, however. "Who to pay for one*'" "So the husband kept his young wife :n that house alone," said Mr Recti, "doing all the work in it herself, and depriving her of what most husbands would gladly give to their wives, a woman to stay in the house with her. If what is alleged to have happened had occurred at all. I sav without, the slightest hesitation." declared compel, "thai petitioner richly deserved it, l>ui it did not occur." Respondent's story of what took place in the house in Waterloo (Quadrant on the night, of June 28th was outlined by Mr Reed, and substantiated later by Mrs Palerson ill the witness-box. According to the joint statements, respondent, on returning from the theatre entered the house ami switched on the light in the hall. She lit no other light. She then opened the front door. Whilst standing at the door Kron j fold came along. Respondent, it, was staled, had only known co-respondent about a fortnight. or three weeks. When Kronfcld stopped at Hie gate, as stated, he was said to have remarked that Mrs Paterson was up late, whereupon she said she was going to retire as soon as she had fed the pony. Kronfcld prised her to let him come m and help her to feed the pony and see that everything was safe, and she then said. "Very wi 11. then come through the house." They entered and walked downstairs, •.witching on the lights as they proceeded. I went oat into the yard, and respondent fed ith ' pony. Mrs Patcrson was stated to j have pointed ou; to Kronfcld a short cut | through the back and over the dividing j wall to h's father's house. Respondent j swore that >he then parted from c> j respondent Hid entered the house. Rer-potid- • ent stated that she assisted her hu-band and I his brother io search the house, and that I she herself switched on all the 1 is.;lsi< as I they proceeded from room io room. Pwc- | spondent further declared that- siie cn'deavot.red then to explain Vo petitioner ! what had n ally happened, out he would , not listen to her. that lie was acting madly.

and called out. "I saw a man get out of the window on tile balcony and jump over." She also swore that after John Patcrson had gone out he r< turned by the front door,.and that she sa'.\ him nnlo k the door at the top of the wahhouse stair.-, and heard him unlock the back door on the floor Inlow. Prior to calling respondent. Mr Reed referred to the evidence of co-respondent, -taken on cotntni-sion in Sydney. The evidence stated that co respondent, on going through the wadihoiec door, "took care, to see that the window in ihe washhouso was left open, of course, without the knowledge of Mrs Patcrson." Kronfcld's evidence w. Nt on to say that when respondent went upstairs after the feedim* of the ponv she locked the door. He waited outside in ihe \ard for some tune, and then opened the washhouso window and got inside. He was about to go upstairs v. lien he heai d a noise at the front doAr. He then got out of the washhouse w|ndo\v again as quickly as he could. Respondent had not in any way consented ro his returning to the house or remaining in it, nor was she aware he intended to icturn. Ho had never licen alone with th(> respondent in a room at any time, nor had there ever l>ecn any familiarity between them. His object in returning was to try and persuade her to permit such familiarity. Further statements in the evidence of Kronfcld included a denial that he had asked to be shot when he was captured. His version was that his captors came to him and said. "If you do not stand still we will shoot." Co-respondent said that Mrs Patcrson was innocent, and he had no icason to believe she was other than a woman of honour. He felt that his action had inflicted a very great wrong oil respondent, and placed her in a wrong position.

1 Mrs Rose Barker, proprietress of the i Bella '\ ista boardinghouse. was the next witness. She stated that on the evening of June 27th respondent was in the kitchen of witness' house from about 5.50 p.m. ; until about 7 p.m.

Crass-examined, witness said that it was not true that respondent had come into the boardinghouse at 6.20 p.m. Ellen Siintns, mother of the respondent, rolatcd how petitioner came to her house after the happenings in the Waterloo Quadrant iii the early morning of June 28lh and told le r he had caught a man in his house. Witness protested later in the day about petitioner's action in turning her daughter out, in the night. She did not know the respondent had returned to the ht:;i»'o and slept in the downstairs room. ( i oss-examined, witness said petitioner had treated respondent \ery well, and had always been considerate and kind to herself.

Summing up. his Honor said that proof of Kronfcld s alleged visii to respondent's house at 6.20 p.m. on June 27 was absolutely essential to the whole of the petitioner s case. If that had been disprorod, the petitioner's case crumbled awav. because only on the truth of the allegations did the truth of what came afterwards depend. The petitioner's witnesses had said that the co-respondent went to the house after midnight, that Mrs Patcrson was not. at the door, which was closed, the house beinir in darkness, and that Kronfcld had walked straight in at the door as if someone was waiting there to admit him. On that the whole superstructure of petitioner s case depended. As io whether Kronfcld was in the house at 6.20 p.m., his Honor directed the jury's attention to the fact that there was the evidence to two so-called private detectives on the one hand, and on the other that of Mrs Paterson (to which the jurv might attach little importance) and in addition that of the proprietress and cook from Bella \ ista. The two detectives, his Honor wont on. were helpless. They differed in the details they had given as to the visit Kroiifeld was stated io have made at 6.20 p.m. In "view ot the contradictory evidence of the detectives and the witnesses from the boarding-house (that respondent was there from 5 o'clock that evening), wa:. it possible for a jury to say that, Kronfcld had been at the respondent's house at 6.20 p.m.. or that. Mrs Patcrson did not go in next door at 5.30? It not. it seemed to his Honor impossible for the jury to say that the respondent was guilty. Referring to the actions of the petitioner and his brother on liemg admitted to the house, his Honor "asked why if the doors were not looked thev did not search the lower pan of the house instead of conlining their attention to the billiard room and l>edroom. For Mrs Pa terse n to have admitted Kronfcld * to the house at all, his Honor continued, was highly indiscreet, but indiscretion was not adultery and a perfectly virtuous woman would very often commit indiscreet actions. The jury must, assume that the respondent was innoctnt until she had been proved guilty. There was no guilt in taking Kronfcld to (he si able while she fed tne pony. Questions of probabilities and improbabilities had b«-en raised, but the jury must not decide on a probability. They might think that, probably the respondent had committed a matrimonial offence, but they could not say so unless satisfied that each step in the evidence had conclusively proved it beyond any doubt. In that case they must' find that th* n spondent. was guilty and that two witnesses from tho boarding-house had not. told the truth, and furthermore, that the evidence of the two private detectives was true. As to the letter, his Honor (lid not know how the jury was going to say. He went on to pass some severe strictures upon the profession of enquiry agent, and the need for the closest scrutiny of their evidence, and it was upon it. he said, that the case depended. His Honor then commented upon the part played in the case by the petitioner's brother. As to the action of die petitioner in throwing his wife out of the house on the nighi of the occurrence, he said it was just as illegal as if was cruel. The law did not allow a man to be judge and jury in his (Ayn case. In conclusion, his Honor said the jurv could not look upon any of the witnesses as impartial except the two Jadies from Bella Viita, whose evidence in his opinion was all-important. The p'.tit ion was dismissed with co«ts, •