AMUSING EVIDENCE IN A DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10836, 20 August 1898, Page 2 (Supplement)

AMUSING EVIDENCE IN A DIVORCE CASE.

An amusing cross-examination was heard in tho Divorce Court, London, a few days ago, when Mrs, Grace Victoria Sears, who lives with her mother in Praed-strcet, petitioned for a divorce on the ground of her husband's misconduct and cruelty. Mr. Bargrave Deane, Q.C., said the parties were married at St. Peter's, Pimlico, in May, 1891, and there were two children of the marriage. Mrs. Sears was very young at the time, and was married without her mother's consent, but after the marriage the mother made the best of it, and had practically assisted her daughter throughout her married life. After the marriage they went to live at Hounslow.

Mrs. Sears complained that her husband pinched-, her arms. Mr. Sears appeared in person, and crossexamined his wife as follows:-Isn't it a fact that when we were courting, and I used to play with you that you bruised very easily? (Laughter.) Not that I know of. (Laughter.) You don't remember those happy days? No. (Laughter.) Haven't you the reputation of having the worst temper m your family? His Lordship: You cannot ask that, because we don't know the tempers of the other members; they may be angelic. (Laughter.) Respondent But the petitioner is not. (Renewed laughter.) Cross-examination continued: It was not a fact that when in a temper she used to break up everything to which he attached personal value. It was not true that her mother persuaded her to leave him. Mrs. Sophie Crane, the next witness, said respondent was a friend of her late husband when they kept a coffee-house in Earlcstreet, Lisson Grove. There Mr. Sears made the acquaintance of Polly Humphreys, to whom he paid considerable attention, He used often to come in for tea and a bloater— (laughter)— she had seen- him kiss' Polly and Polly kiss him. Respondent had said that he was saving up his money to get a divorce, and as soon as he got a'divorce he was going to marry Polly. Miss Mary Humphreys, examined by respondent, said she had known him from childhood. She renewed the acquaintance at the coffee-house of "the Cranes." Did I "use" to have a bloater there? Yes, you did, and-your special favourite was a hardroed (laughter)— I had to cook it specially for you. Have I ever called you "Polly?" Oh, yes! I cannot deny that; but what harm if you have? But I never called you "Teddy;" I detest the name. Respondent: Have I ever been guilty of any improper behaviour? ■ No, never. Mr. Bargrave Deane: Has he ever kissed you? Yes. He has kissed me, and I have done the same. Respondent: How' many times have I kissed you?- Have I kissed you frequently, or only occasionally?. Witness: It was only under the mistletoe, and only about once or twice. It is absurd. ;'.;-:■

; Sir Francis Jeune, in giving lu's decision came to the conclusion that the balance of evidence as to.the cruelty was in favour of the wife," and lie. must hold that on occasions the husband had been guilty of cruelbyi. With, regard to the adultery,' charged with Miss Humphreys,' the' learned judge was of opinion that there had been kissing between them," and that carried the case a long way, and on the whole the evidence showed that this charge" was also • established; therefore there would be a decree nisi, with costs,' and custody of the two children of the marriage.