DIVORCE PETITION

Northern Advocate, 17 August 1933, Page 6

DIVORCE PETITION

RICHARDSON CASE NEARING THE END JENKINS CROSS-EXAMINED EVIDENCE CONCLUDES COUNSEL ADDRESS JURY (Special to “Northern Advocate.”) AUCKLAND, This Day. After unusually protracted proceedings, the hearing of evidence was completed in the Supreme Court yesterday, and addresses by counsel were begun, in the action in which Kenneth Rahiri George Richardson is petitioning for dissolution of his, marriage with Mona Mary Richardson on the ground of adultery with Harry Reginald Jenkins, company promoter and ex-M.P. Richardson is also claiming £IOOO damages against the co-respondent. The action is being heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury of 12, Mr. C. Weston and with him Mr. J. R. Hopkins appears for petitioner, Mr. R. A. Singer for the respondent, and Mr. A. H, Johnstone and with him Mr. C. J. Lovegrove, for the co-respondent. Launch Trip. Further cross-examination of the witness Jenkins . ensued. Witness said he drove Ted Otway’s family to the Crow’s Nest, Titirangi, to oblige Ted. In a previous year the launch Shenandoah had cost him £6OO to run. The year following, as a result of Ted Otway’s assistance in cleaning the vessel and looking after the engine, it had cost him not. £6. The taking of the family to Titirangi was one of the occasions when he obliged them 'in return. He I did not visit Titirangi while they were staying there. . tention of buying the property at Kerikeri came from Mrs. Richardson and her sister ? —‘ ‘ That. is correct.’ ’

“And you suggested coming into it with ;,your brother?” —■ ‘ Yes. ’ ’ ‘‘And you all had equal shares?” — “ When my brother withdrew, one hundred acres were allotted to me, and Mr. Otway and his sister were to get about 70” “How was the money to be found?” -—“£2oo deposit and £SO next Novemher,” . “‘And the £2OO .was paid?’’ —-“I paid £2O and Otway paid £180.” . v “That was not equal shares?’ ’ — “Well, I had to take the responsibility of the November payment and the quarter’s interest.’ ’ “How did they find the £180?’’ — “I have no idea.’’ “'Did you help them at all?”—“Certainly not.” ‘‘ Would your books bear inspection on that point? ’’ —“There would be no books dealing with that transaction particularly. My cheque vouchers ,Would show it probably.’’

“1)0 yon expect Mrs. Richardson to find any more money for this property?”—“Yes, I think they should be self-supporting from the start. ” “If Mrs. Richardson has to find her share how do you imagine she is going Vto find ft?”—“From the income. I am not Concerned with Mrs. Richardson’s side of finding the. money. ” ■-> ; “You do not know how she will find it?” —“And don’t care, if you'want it bluntly.’’ Nothing to Hide. “Will-you tell us of other occurrences when you have seen Mrs. Richardson? \Ve have only learned of these other times with great difficulty.” —

“I do not agree with you. If I could recall I would- willingly tell the jury of every time I have seen her. I am not ashamed of it. I have nothing dishonourable, to hide. Mrs. Richardson is a friend of mine and I hope I shall always retain her friendship.” “Did your association with Mrs. Richardson cause any talk?” —“Not that I knew until recently, until this petition. Then the dogs were barking, to use a common phrase. All Auckland knew about it. All the lawyers in Auckland knew. All my staff knew of it before the issue of the petition in the ease.”

“In July, 1932, it came to your ears that someone was talking about you and Mrs. Eichardson?” —“Yes.” , “Morrison said Eichardson had told him that he had it from three reputable people that you had lived with Mrs. Eichardson at Devonport.” — “That was Te Paki talk, not Auckland talk.” * “As a man of the world, you must have known that if there was anything in this talk it must have come from Auckland?”—“l do not admit I am ■a main of the world.” “Well then, as a man of common sense?” —“Not if that Is common ■sense.” “You were told at Te Paki, but it referred to Auckland conduct?” — ‘Possibly. It was untrue.” “Bid it not occur to you to be a fair thing to protect her name?”—“l have done nothing-to injure her name. It did not occur to me.” “Did yon warn Mrs. Eichardson of these rumours?” —“Not that I knffw of. It was reasonable that I would tell her.”

“Here is this report that three people said you were living with her at Devonport and do you tell me that if you were a man with a spark of honour you would not tell her?” — “No.” * They Who Think Evil. “What about all these launch trips —the buying of property, is not that

an -association?” —“To an evil mind, yes. ’ ’ “Do you suggest that your conduct, after hearing this information from Morrison, did not lead to these proceedings?” —“There was no association.’’ “I put it to you that if you had not been committed up to the hilt with Mrs. Richardson you would have cut the association?” —“What do you mean ? ’ ’ “I suggest you were so committed that you could not cut the association?” —“It is not true.” “I must ask you a question about your wife.” —“I thought you would have spared my wife.” “On all these motor and launch parties, has your wife been there?” —■ “My wife and family went with me on week days.” “Were you on good terms with your wife in 1932 and 1933?” I was. ’ ’ “I put it to you that Mrs. Jenkins is a deeply religious woman?” “Yes.”

“She is what you would call an, austere woman?” —“She has 'ory] deep religious views on some questions, j We have sensibly agreed to differ on vital points of religion.” “Has it affected the real intimacy of your married life?”—”1 would not like to say that.” “Has Mrs. Richardson affected your relations with Mrs. Jenkins?”“No.” “Have you asked your wife to divorce you?” —“No.” “Did you not tell your wife you were in love with Mrs. Richardson?” —“lt is not true.” “Did you not resort to the trick of saying that yom would impute misconduct to her?”—“l did not.” “Did you ask Morrison to keep ,his nose out of your private affairs?” — ‘ is the last man I would have said it to. I had no occasion to say it.” “You admit that if he saw you coming to bed at the Waipapakauri Hotel at 4 o’clock in the morning it would not be to your interest for him to keep his nose out of your affairs?” —“lf he saw me, yes.” The Lady’s Bedroom. “Why did you go into the lady’s bedroom at all? You are one of the old-fashioned kind, so you told us.” — “There is not much comfort in that hotel, and when her brother suggested I should go in, it was a reasonable thing to go and hear what she had to say.’ ’ * ‘ Thode says that when he turned the electric light engine off you were not in your room?” —“Either Otway or myself turned off the light. Morrison was in bed asleep with his face turned to the wall. Ht did not move when we went in.”

“Morrison’s story is that you came in at 4 o’clock?” —“It is not true.” “Who paid next morning?”—“l paid. Otway gave me a 10/- note.” “So Thodc is correct when he says you paid?” —“Yes, that is one thing he is correct in,” Re-examined by Mr. Johnstone, witness said ho liked to spend as much time as possible on the launch Shenandoah. It was a relaxation after the business worries of the week. Mr. Johnstone: “In the case of Sunday, your wife and you do not view it in the same way?” % Witness: “I am not an irreligious man. It is the only thing that , is keeping the world together to-day. ’ ’ Mr. Johnstone; “It is just that you do not view in the same way this matter of Sunday observance?” James Wylie gave evidence that he visited Te Paid with Jenkins. When he returned Mrs. Richardson came to Auckland with them in their car. Her husband .had asked witness to bring her, as her teeth had to be attended to. This concluded the hearing of evidence. DEFENCE ARGUMENT MR. JOHNSTONE’S REVIEW Addressing the jury, Mr. Johnstone said not even the most sacred thing which existed for a wife had remained uninvestigated. It was still, however, a question of whether or not misconduct had occurred on March 18 at the Waipapakauri Hotel. He was confident they could answer that the charge had not been proved. Petitioner had assessed the value of his wife at £IOOO, and therefore they had to consider what was the value of respondent to her husband. If she had brought any value into their common partnership it had since been lost, as the evidence showed.

There could be no possible foundation for the' belief that Jenkins in any way influenced respondent to leave her home. Petitioner had commenced an affair which had lasted to the present day. From January, 1931, ho was secretly engaged. From that time he 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 the traditional case of some Lothario stealing away the affections of his wife, but the case of a man who wanted to get rid of his wife and at the same time get £IOOO. He could not have his cake and eat it. Counsel said he would submit that petitioner could not point to any scrap of evidence that there was a. disposition on the part of the respondent and co-respondent to commit, misconduct. No one could suggest that Jenkins had done a single thing other than to interest himself in a kindly manner in the affairs of the unfortunate couple. “Morrison was the informer,” said Mr, Johnstone. “It was he who poured the 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 by the fact that he had lost his job and had a grievance against Jenkins?’ ’ The hearing was adjourned until this morning, when the addresses of other counsel will be heard.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS MR. SINGER’S ADDRESS Mr. Singer, for respondent, began his address to the jury by scathingly criticising matters which had been brought into the case in cross-examin-ation of Mrs. Richardson and Jenkins. He said the proceedings brought by Richardson against his wife were both dishonourable and untrue and were part of the pursuit of the respondent by Richardson and his “jackals,” He said he had been shocked, and 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.

Mr. Singer quoted the view expressed by a prominent judge in England, who said when addressing a jury: “It is not what you believe, suspect or think, but has the prosecution satisfied you beyond all reasonable doubt that the charges have been proved?” “I challenge you to say the charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubt in this ease,” said Mr. Singer. “I go further, and say that not only has Richardson failed to prove his allegations, but no decent man would believe them true.” Counsel dealt with the evidence for the petitioner in detail, and characterised it as the flimsiest ever brought before the court in such a grave charge. It was not a matter of whether the jury should think the petitioner and respondent should be apart, but whether she had committed adultery with co-respondent. “He, Richardson,” he asserted, “is full of subterfuges and tricks and will go to any lengths to get you to give him his freedom.”

Mr. Singer dealt at considerable length with the evidence of Morrison, who was, he said, the petitioner’s “star” witness. He drew particular attention to the letter written by Morrison to Jenkins in July, 1932, in which he said Jenkins knew the rumours to be untrue. ‘ ‘ With all the scavenging evidence that has been brought,” he said, “there is not even a suggestion that Mrs. Richardson had called Jenkins ‘Harry’ or that he had called her ‘Mona,’ or that they had kissed or even shaken hands. The petitioner has come into this court with as unclean hands as I ever remember a petitioner coming to court,” Mr. Singer finally asked the jury to decide that the petitioner had not proved the terrible and gravest of charges a man could bring against his wife.

PETITIONER’S CASE. PUT BY MR WESTON. . Mr Weston, for the petitioner, said the question was whether Mrs Richardson and Jenkins had gone beyond the limits of mere friendship. Tie asked them to consider not only the evidence of what was alleged to ha\ rr * occurred on the night of March 18, 193], but the present relationship between Mrs Richardson and Jenkins. “We suggest,” said Mr Weston, “that it is not an ,innocent friendship, but is an illicit one, and that Jenkins and Mrs 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 been told that three reputable persons would say that he and Mrs Richardson had been living together. Their acquaintance had gone beyond the bonds of friendship. Mrs Richardson had left her husband, given up her home, everything for him, and had gone too far, and Jenkins had to stick to her.” Mr W T eston touched upon the purchase of land at Kerikeri, also the disposal of the car by Jenkins to Mrs Richardson. “We say that the car was a gift by Jenkins to his mistress,” said Mr Weston. “All the talk about Mrs Richardson wanting to make up their differences with her husband you can throw aside, because her actions show that her real object was to get evidence to ‘catch her husband out.’ ” In this, despite her taking a private detective to Te Paid, she failed. As far as her husband was concerned she was a. free lance on March 18, 1932. She left her husband in November of the previous year, and in March was out to get evidence for divorce. As to what occurred on the night of March 18 at the Waipapakauri Hotel, the jury had to rely upon the evidence of Thode and Morrison, and the jury had, as men of the world, to make their, own inferences, Jenkins had every reason to be bitter against Morrison. Jenkins had tried to bribe Morrison to keep his nose out of Jenkins’ affairs, Mr Weston asserted, and when Morrison would not be bribed Jenkins had reason to bo bitter.

Mr Weston suggested that the jury should regard the evidence of Mrs Eichardson, her brother, and Jenkins as “fishy,” because they agreed in the minutest detail in their version at the Waipnpakauri Hotel.