DIVORCE SOUGHT

Northern Advocate, 5 November 1931, Page 2

DIVORCE SOUGHT

TAU RANG A J EWELLER. C’OUN TER ALLEGATION S. BOTH PETITIONS DISMISSED. (Special to “Northern Advocate.”) AUCKLAND, AY o dr.csday. A Taurauga jeweller who made allegations of adultery against his wife and claimed £IOOO damages against a co-respondent sought the dissolution of his marriage in the Supreme Court today. Petitioner was Richard Rupert Randle. Respondent was Minnie CTosbic Randle, and the co-respondent was Alexander Forbes Leslie, retired, of Taurauga. The case was heard before Air Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve.

Counsel for the petitioner said that the respondent and the co-respondent, in their answer to the allegations, denied the charges, and there was an amended answer in which adultery was alleged against the petitioner. Petitioner said in evidence that he had been a jeweller at Tauranga between nine and ton years. He was married to the respondent in February, 1905, and there were throe children, two of whom were married. Prior to coming to Tauranga, lie was in business in Timaru for 1G years. A Private Detective, In 1925 or 192 G, witness said, he met the co-respondent in connection with yachting and hockey activities. About December, .1927, ho obtained a loan of £IOO at 8 per cent interest from Leslie. This was fully repaid during 1929. Shortly after witness obtained the loan he noticed Leslie frequently in his shop, especially when he returned from lunch. Airs Randle appeared to be very friendly with him, and, when the money was repaid, witness told Leslie not to come to tho shop again. "Witness also spoke to his wife, and told her the association must end. She replied it was “all talk,” Instead of ceasing, the friendship became stronger than ever. Witness several times saw his wife in Leslie’s motor car. One evening ho saw Mrs Randle enter a waiting ear in the Strand, Tauranga, and she was driven off. That was in December, 1929. He engaged a private detective soon afterwards. ' More Suspicion. Continuing, witness said that ,on April 3, 1930, at 8.45 p.m., ho saw Airs Randle meet Leslie. Just afterwards lie saw her enter Leslie’s car, which was driven away. Later in the evening witness located the ear in tho darkness, and had it under observation for a quarter of an horn 1 . On another occasion about midnight he watched the ear for almost an hour. He then saw the lights switched on. Airs Randle was inside. Three further occasions were described by witness, on the third of which he said he drove rapidly up in another car with a number of witnesses. He immediately opened the door of Leslie’s car, and saw his wife and the co-respondent in' the front scat. Leslie said: “What are you coming at? I’ll slosh yon one.” Witness asked his wife what she meant by her conduct, and she replied: “Just what evil minds would think."’

There avus a smell of liquor in the car. To liis Honour: His wife kept the home well and cared for the family, but there was grave unhappiness because of her friendship for Leslie. L’nder cross-examination by counsel for the respondent, witness _ said he had left his wife in December, .1930, He admitted lie had been friendly with a Avoman in a hotel. His wife complained to him about this. After one of these Avomen left Tauranga, ho met her "on business’ ’ at Auckland and other places. During the cross-examination the Court Avas adjourned for counsel to argue in chambers whether the petitioner could be questioned on any matters which might tend to show that he had been guilty of misconduct Avith Avomen.

After the legal position had been discussed, his Honour ruled that no questions should bo admitted in crossexamination Avhich were directly intended to prove misconduct on the pietitloner’s part. “Quiet Places.” Petitioner, continuing, said that a Avoman Avitli whom he was friendly had been acting as his agent for the sale of jeAvollory. Regarding the incident Avhen respondent and the co-respondent wore surprised in Leslie’s car, witness Avas unable to say whether his Avife had taken any liquor, but she walked unsteadily Avhen she got out of the car. John Goddard, a private detective, said he began investigations for the petitioner in February last year. Witness Avas at Tauranga foi; a Aveek and found the respondent and co-respond-cat Avero in each other’s company daily. Leslie had driven Mrs Handle away in his motor car and had parked Ihe car at places where it Avas impossible to approach without being seen nr heard. Witness described incidents when the ear, Avith Mrs Handle in it, was parked in quiet, places at night.] The lights were switched off on each ] oecasion.

Amos Smith, salesman, of Tauranga, said he had seen The respondent and co-respondent frequently together' in Leslie’s car. Once he saw them get out of. the car at a lonely spot near the rifle butts ami go behind the butts. ■\\ hen a lorry passed they suddenly reappeared.

Respondent's counsel stated that all the evidence went to show wms that respondent and co-respondent had been on friendly terms. There was no compelling inference of guilt.

Not Convincing. “Tho evidence is very slight indeed,” said His Honour, “but I do not feel disposed to withdraw the case from the jury at this stage.” Respondent's counsel said the defence was in the nature of a crosspetition. It was alleged that Randle had become enamoured of a. young girl employed in a hotel. At the Ruatoria Hotel he passed himself off as a single man, and their engagement was announced.

Co-respondent said he had become friendly Avith Mr and Mrs Handle about fi\ r e or six years ago. On one occasion Handle asked him to take Mrs Handle home from a ball, as Handle Avishcd to see a young lady home. He often drove Mrs Handle about, Avith or Avithout relatives, in the car. He denied every allegation of impropriety. Evidence of petitioner’s association with a housemaid in a Tauranga hotel was given by other witnesses. A girl who had worked at the'Ruatoria Hotel stated that Handle visited there, and the housemaid previously leferred to said she Avas to be married to him. She showed Avitness a biidal frock and engagement ring.

l*otitioner's counsel recalled Randle to g' v o mi'absolute denial «f the allegations against him. He was crossexamined by respondent’s counsel. , ' The housemaid referred to denied the allegations of impropriety with Randle, and also that she had ever shown a ■wedding dress or engagement ring. Jtny’s rinding. His Honour told the jury it was not suflieient for petitioner to bring evidence which simply raised suspicion of guilt or showed extreme indiscretion. The facts must be submitted from which the only reasonable inference that could be drawn was guilt. The question of damages would be considered only if the jury found co-respond-ent guilty of misconduct. Ju any case, damages must be only compensational and not punitive.

After a retirement of L'd minuTes the jury returned answers in the negative to all three questions put to it, and as to whether any of the parties had been guilty of misconduct. The petition and cross-petition wore dismissed. Costs were allowed to the wife on the higher scale. His Honour decided not to allow Leslie costs, expressing the view' that the man’s stupid conduct Lad disentitled him to costs. He had no right to behave in the w r a y lie did.