DIVORCE SUIT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 18 August 1933, Page 5

DIVORCE SUIT

RICHARDSON CASE ADDRESS TO JURY - V;™* (By Telegraph—Press Association) AUCKLAND, 17th August. In the course of his address - to thejury in the Richardson divorce action, Mr A. H. Johnstone (counsel for the co-respondent) said he was confident that the jury could answer that the charge of misconduct at the Waipapakauri Hotel on 18th March, 1932, 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. . The. petitioner had commenced an affair, which had lasted to,,the present, day. From January, 1931,. he was secretly, engaged,, and from that time lie 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 Bis wife?”;-asked, coungel; “Nothing!” This was not the traditional case, of some Lothario stealing,away the affections of his wife, he continued, but the easel of: a man who wanted to get rid of his wife and at the same time to get £IOOO. He could not have his cake and eat it. Counsel said he would submit that tlie petitioner could not-point to any scfap of evidence that there was a disposition on the port of the respondent and the cd-respondent to commit misconduct. f “Morrison was the informer,” said Mr Johnstone. “It was he who poured poison into the greedy ears of Richardson. T put"it' r to you;' Did he inform in the sacred interests- of justice and truth, or was lie influenced by-the fact that he had lost his job and had ’a grievance against Jenkins.” - Mr R. A. Siiiger, for the respondent, began his address to the jury by scathingly criticising matters which had been brought into the case in the cross-ex-amination of Mrs Richardson and Jenkins. He said that the proceedings brought by. Richardson againstTiis wife were both dishonourable and untrue, and were part- of the pursuit of. the respondent by Richardson and'fliis “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,” said counsel, “to say that the charges have hem proved beyond reasonable doubt in this case. I go further and say that not only has Richardson failed to prove his allegations, but that no decent man would believe it true l .” 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 the petitioner and , respondent would be better apart, but ' whether she had committed' i, with , the co-respondent. “Richardson, ’ he asserted, “is full of subterfuges and ■ tricks, and will go to any lengths to 4 get you to give him his freedom.” '** Mr C. 11. Weston, for the petitioner -j followed Mr Singer, but he had not T completed his address by the luncheon adjournment. He said that the question was whether Mrs Richardson and Jenkins had gone beyond the limits of V mere friendship. He asked the jury to y consider not only the evidence! of what - was alleged to have occurred on the night of 18th March, , 1931 but also the - present relationship between Mrs. Richardson and Jenkins. “Wes suggest,” / said Mr Weston, “that it is not ah-in- A nocent friendship, but. that ..it is an illicit one, and that Jenkins and Mi's Richardson are lover and mistress. If Jenkins had been an honourable,man,. he would, when he heard of rumours, ■; have kept away from this attractive youna- married woman. He had even been told that three reputable persons' ■ would say that he and Mrs. Richardson had been living bpvond the bounds - of friendship. Mrs Richardson-.had, left her husband and had given up her _homo and everything for him, and had gone ?■ too far, and Jenkins had to stick to her.” .... • "•>. It is expected that .the. jury, will be out all the afternoon. J PETITION DISMISSED AUCKLAND. This Day. The petition was‘dismissed, with'costs against the petitioner. " ■ ■