SEEKING DIVORCE,

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15390, 27 August 1913, Page 11

SEEKING DIVORCE,

THE PATERSON CASE.

PETITIONER'S STORY.

AN UNANNOUNCED RETURN.

EARLY MORNING SCENE.

ALLEGATIONS DENIED.

Rkmabkatvce disclosures were made in the course of the first day's hearing at tho Supreme Court yesterday of a suit for divorce brought by William Henry Paterson, of Auckland, farmer, against his wife Mabel Kathleen Paterson. The ground of the petition for the dissolution of the marriage was alleged misconduct, Gustav Kronfeld, of Auckland, engineer, being joined as co-respondent. Respondent defended the action, denying the allegations of misconduct. There was no appearance of the co-respondent, who has left New Zealand, and whose evidence has been taken on commission in Sydney. The case, which was heard -before His Honor Judge Edwards" and a jury of 12, aroused considerable interest, and the public portion of the- courtroom was crowded. Mr. M. G. McGregor appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C, with him Mr. Black, . for the respondent. Throughout the day's proceedings Mrs. Paterson occupied a seat beside her leading counsel. She was soberly attired in a grey costume, and wore a seal toque. Frequently she displayed keen interest during the cross-examination of petitioner. Both counsel fully exhausted their right* of challenge when the jury was being sworn in. The following were eventually empanelled:—Messrs. Mark Bowles (foreman), G. McXeown, C. H. Cook, C. N. ■ S. George, W. Calder, G. Stevenson, H. E. Flicker, H. Appleton, G. E. Lee, E. C. Windsor, H. R. Jones, and A. Boyd. The story told by counsel for petitioner in his opening address, and supported by Paterson and another witness in evidence, was that the parties were married at St. Sepulchre's Church, Auckland, on June 28, 1909. Paterson was then 33 years old and his wife who, when he married her, was employed as a typist in a city office, was 29. The petitioner, it was stated, owned part of the island of Mofiti, off Taurangai Heads, and about 110 miles from Auckland, where he bred cattle and horses. His business necessarily took him away from home at frequent intervals, and during the last six months or so he had l)een away about three weeks an every month. He said he always asked respondent to go with him on these trips, but she only went ; two or three times. Quarrels Over Another Man. After the marriage . the parties lived happily for about 12 months at Orakei Road, Remuera. Then, it was stated, tho husband considered that a certain person was paying too much attention to his wife. Hi remonstrated with her on three occasions, and she indignantly denied that there was anything improper in her relations with the man in question. Ultimately this subject of difference led to a serious disagreement. Respondent then told petitioner that she thought more Of the other-man than she did of him, and wanted him to agree to a separation and give her an allowance. To this the husband would not consent, and later respondent said she had made the statement when she was heated, and that she did not mean it. After that th& parties got on better together for some time.

Then the wife complained that the Remuera house was too lonely for her, and persuaded petitioner to buy an allotment in Waterloo Quadrant, where he erected a house (No. 14). The property, including the land, cost petitioner over £4000. A Trap Laid lor the Respondent. The petitioner, it was stated, went away to his island in June last, and when he came back he had an uncomfortable feeling as to what bis wife might have been doing in his absence. He decided to determine whether or not his doubts were warranted. He told his wife on Friday, June 27, that he was going to his brother's farm at Glen Murray, in the Waikato, and that he would not be back until the following Monday. At the same time he arranged to have his wife watched. Petitioner left town by the 4.15 p.m. train, got out at Penrose, and was there met by his brother, Mr. John Paterson, in a motor-car, the two driving back to the latter's residence at Mount Eden. In the meantime respondent had rung up petitioner's brother who was a "merchant in Fort Street —and asked if petitioner was there. She. was told he had gone to Glen Murray.

Coming to the circumstances immediately responsible for the present application for divorce, the Court was told that whilst Paterson went out to his brother's house at Mount Eden, two inquiry agents, named Brooks and Davison, watched the house in Waterloo Quadrant. Shortly after 6 p.m. a man came out of petitioner's residence and was followed. Ho went into the house in Eden Crescent, owned by corespondent's father. Later that evening respondent and her mother went to the pantomime, and after the performance Mrs. Paterson parted from her mother and returned to her own house alone Jit about 11.55 p.m. She was followed by the two private detectives. Co-respondent Seen Entering the House. According to the story for the petitioner, the watchers outside the house saw the electric light switched on in respondent's bedroom, and extinguished about 10 minutes later. At 12.10 a.m. it was stated that they observed the corespondent coming round ' Waterloo Quadrant. A little later he was seen to be admitted to Paterson's house. _ He did not knock and was not kept waiting. At this time the house was in darkness, but a few minutes afterwards a light appeared in the diningroom, being put out 10 minutes later. A dim light from a globe, sworn to be ore suspended over the respondent's bed, then appeared in her room. The watchers rang up the petitioner at Mount Eden. Husband Arrives on the Scene. On receipt of the telephone message from the detectives petitioner and his brother John procured a taxi-cab, drove into town, and picked up the two watchers. When the husband arrived in front of his house the faint light was, he stated, still showing in the bedroom. It remained lit for five minutes, and then went cut. Petitioner said that he and his brother and the other two men waited for a quarter of an hour, and that he then decided to enter the house. He and bis brother took off their boots and went to the front door. Producing his latchkey, petitioner unlocked the door, but found that it would only open a few inches, as the chain was up. He and his brother struggled for a few minutes trying to burst the door in, but the chain was to<S strong. Whilst this was going on the other two men were posted, one at a gate on the left, and the other at a gate on the right of the house. "There Is No Man Here," Respondent, it was stated, then called out, "Who's there?" Petitioner replied, "I am here, let me in." Mrs. Paterson thereupon removed the chain and let him I in.

"Where is the man in the h £ u ?fJ'' asked the husband, as his brother switched on the lights. _ ~'- "Do not be mad, 9, his wife was said™ have replied. "There is no man here. "There is a man here," retorted petitioner, " and I will produce him. , Petitioner and his brother then proceeded to search the house, but found no trace of the man they sought Petitioner's brother was on the back balcony when he saw the Patersons pony gallop-., ing about the yard. They, thereupon rushed downstairs in order to investigate. "I Implore You To Shoot Me." One of the detectives outside, meantime heard a door open in the basement ami calling to his companion the two of them ran down the carriage drive on the leto of the house. In the yard at the back thev saw the co-respondent, wrth # a bundle of clothes under his arm, running towards the wire fence at the bottom. The detectives gave chase, and m attempting to "get over the fence their quarry fell, and they caught him and took him back towards the house. ■ petitioner and his brother met them half-way up the yard. Petitioner stated that when he came up to co-respondent the latter cried,. " Shoot me, I imDlore' vou, old man, if yo y ™ got a gun, shoot me." He added. Do not show your wife up." The co-respondent was taken up the yard, and was given an overcoat, which he put on. Petitioner insisted upon corespondent going into the house and being confronted with Mrs. Paterson. The party entered through a door which Paterson affirmed was usually locked, but was then open, and respondent was met half-way down the top stairs. Pointing at the co-respondent, Mrs. Paterson (according to the petitioner's story) ejaculated : " I do not know him. I never "saw him before," whilst the corespondent said, " Shoot me. Give me a gun and I will shoot myself." Ordered Out of the House. The husband, it was stated, then ordered both the co-respondent and the respondent out of the house. Co-respon-dent left, but Mrs. Paterson went into her room and lay down on the bed. Petitioner, however, insisted upon her getting up and leaving the premises. She then dressed and, petitioner stated, he put some money in her pocket on her refusal to take any from him. He offered to drive her to her mother's, or to her sister's, or anywhere she liked. Respondent left the house, and petitioner and his brother followed her in the car to Princes Street, again offering to drive her where she wanted to go. She refused, however. Petitioner then said he was going to tell her people what had happened, and she said, " For God's sake, do not tell my mother." Petitioner drove on, however, and did inform her mother, and later in the day the relatives came in search of her. The Anniversary of the Wedding. When the car went on, respondent turned back and re-entered the house. She locked herself in a downstairs room, unknown to her husband. On the same day (the 28th) petitioner stated that ho found some male clothing in the back yard, and put the articles on the safe in his office. He went out to feed the pony, and on returning, the clothes in question were missing. Subsequently, he found respondent in the downstairs room in bed. He refused to take breakfast with her. Twice, he said, she told him she had done wrong/ She alno reminded him, he asserted, that it was the anniversary of their wedding. "Yes," said the husband, and that is the way you celebrate it." Respondent's relatives came later and took her away. In reply to his counsel, petitioner said he had given his wife about £5 when he ordered her out of the house, and had paid her £3 a week since. He had had interviews with her at his solicitor's office and elsewhere since the rupture. On these occasions they were always alone. A Plea for Pardon Refused. Mr. McGregor: At any of these interviews did she say she had met the corespondent at the* front door, and that ha had offered to assist her to feed the pony ? Witness: No. What did she say?— she was at the front door, and saw Kronfeld passing that ho stopped and talked to her for a while, and pressed her to let him go into the house with her. She said she had done wrong, and wanted me to pardon her. . What did you say ?—I said there was no pardon for adultery. She still persevered, and said she wanted me, but. I went away. She asked me if i had aver done anything wrong, and I said, "Not of that sort." The interview then ended. It was further stated for the petitioner that Kronfeld had made no explanation as to what he was doing in the house, though he had plenty of opportunity when he was caught and before he left tor Australia a week later. The witness swore to a suit of produced—as being the one taken from the co-respondent at the time he was caught in the yard. Attitude a! a Brother. A lengthy cross-examination of the petitioner was at this stage commenced by Mr. Reed. In reply to questions witness said that when he went away on June £1 he was on perfectly affectionate terms with his wife. He had only had her watched on that one night, but his brother John had had her watched previously. About a week before the 27th witness received a letter at Tauranga from his brother concerning respondent. ' Mr. Reed: Had ho previously reflected upon the morals of your wife? Witness: Yes; on several occasions. What did you Nothing. When was the first occasion upon which he made these reflections?— two years ago. " Your brother did not like your wife, 1 believe?—He had no cause either to like or dislike her. Did he not object to your marriage?— NO-' ~ u ♦ Did you ever speak to your wife about these statements of your brother's?— Yes. We quarrelled about them three times. Did you tell her it was your brother who was making these suggestions ?— may have done so, but I do not think I did. When did you first know your brother had had detectives watching your wife?— About a week before June 28. In consequence of your brother's letter you came up to Auckland?— Yes. You met your wife just as usual, and treated her just the same?— And then went away intending to leave a trap for her?— Yes. Domestic Kelp Question. In answer to further questions witness said his wife moved into the house in Waterloo Quadrant in January last. Only some of the doors were on. There was no staircase in the house, and he and his wife procured their meals next door. Mrs. Patersc:! did the cleaning up of the house by herself. He was not aware she was very delicate, but a doctor was attending her. At times respondent said she would like a servant, but at other times she would not Lave one. She could have had one if she had wanted to. Petitioner denied that respondent had repeatedly asked him to let her have a servant, or that he had refused such a request on the plea that he could not afford one. Nor did he suggest she should ask her mother and sisters to help her in the house. Husband's Absences from Home, When your wife was ill in bed at the Waterloo Quadrant house did you suggest she should have a nurse?— l think I was away at the time. Oh, come now. Did you not ring up the doctor yourself? — Yes. Did you not then go away, and leave her lying ill '(— She was all right when I went away. Did you not go away on the day she got up leaving no provision for her to be looked after?— Her people were about. I made no provision for a nurse or anyone to look after her. Then you were aware that your wife, a young woman, was in that house since January last, coming back to it frequently alone?-- At times her people were with her. You consider you were perfectly justified in leaving her in that nouse alone? Yes.

Has she not repeatedly begged you not to leave her alone so much, or be away so long —No never. Further cross-examined, witness said he deliberately thought out the untruth about his alleged visit to Glen Murray on June 27 to tell his wife. Under the circumstances he thought he was justified in telling her a lie. . Jealous of One Individual. Petitioner said he only objected to his wife associating with one particular individual. It was not the co-respondent., The individual in question came to their house to teach Mrs. Paterson billiards. If you were jealous of your wife why did you not have someone to live with her? I did not think it was necessary. You were fond of your wife?— When respondent rang up your brother and asked for you did she not want to tell you a man you had business with wanted you?—l believe so. A Telephonic Communication. When you asked your wife where the man was in the house, did she not sav ? "There has been no man in the house for a quarter of an hour. Kronfeld came through the house with me, but never came back?"— She said: "Don't be mad. There is no man here," and she got me by the shoulders and shook me. Then she went into the bedroom—pretty quickly, too. . When they caught Kronfeld in the backyard did nob your brother have to go back, enter the house, and go downstairs to unlock a door to admit the party?— No. That is going to be sworn to, Mr. Paterson.—lt did not occur. Did you not ring up your solicitor after the occurrence in the" presence of Mrs. Paterson and others, and say you had seen Kronfeld jumping over the balcony?— I never said that. I said we had got Kronfeld. I never mentioned the balcony. His Wife's Name a Byword. You know your wife's name has been a byword in Auckland since this happened —I believe so. Did you assist in making it so?—-I may have done so. If a man asked me what had happened, I told him. Are you also responsible for the coupling of her name with all sorts of outsiders? — No. You know it has been done ? —Yes. With all sorts of outsiders Yes, with all sorts of outsiders. You are not responsible for that?l may have coupled her name with one other besides the co-respondent, but with no one else. Have you discussed with your brother John th advisability of trying to stop these' rumours No. More About Petitioner's Brother. Witness, in reply to further questions put by Mr. Reed, said he had had the locks of the house altered. A key was given ft his wife, so that she might get her goods out. The lock had been changed again by his brother John, because the latter thought it was not right that Mrs. Paterson should bo in the house with friends. His brother advised him to go out of town after the affair of June 28. Your brother John seems to have a good deal to say in your affairs ? —He seems to have had good reason. Was he averse to your meeting your wife after what happened ?—I believe so. Was he afraid there might be a reconciliation?—l think that was what it was. So, to prevent that possibility he persuaded you to leave the town, and he is very anxious for you to get a divorce ?— Ho thinks it is the proper course. It is my business, however, not his. I should think it was a good deal his business from what you have told us. When the co-respondent was brought in did not your brother say to you, " Tip her out at once?"He may have done. I was excited, and did not keep a record of all that happened or was said. So you proceeded to " tip her out?"— I was doing so when he suggested it. .&. An Offer to Help to Feed the Pony. On the next morning, and subsequently at Mr. McGregor's office, did your wife not tell you that the co-respondent had come to the door of the house on the night of June 27, and that, standing on the footpath, he had made some remark about her being late; that she said to , him she only had to feed the pony and was then going to bed; that the co-respondent said, "Let mo come and help you feed the pony;" that she replied, " Oh no, it does not matter," or something to that effect; that co-respondent had been persistent, and had come into the house with her and walked straight down through the house to the basement; that she had fed the pony, had said "good night",to Kronfeld there, and pointed out to him a short cut through the back to his lather's place; that she hid then locked up the back of the house, gone into the kitchen, boiled the kettle, filled the hot water bag, and had then gone into her room; that, just as she was about to retire, the knock came at the front door, and that she was quite unaware that co-respondent was still on the premises till they found him ?—She never mentioned anything of the sort to me. Did she not insist that she did not know the co-respondent was there ?— She never denied he was there—never. When Kronfeld was brought up into the house did not respondent then say she did not know he was there ? No, she said she did not know him. Did you know ? —No. Case Adjourned Until To-day. Petitioner was then briefly re-examined by Mr. McGrefor. He said that when he was married his brother John was best man," and made no difficulty about acting in that capacity. Herbert Marshall Brooks, an inquiry agent, said he had been watching petitioner's house since February 21 last. He obtained his instructions from John Paterson, and first saw the petitioner en June 26.

Witness related the details of what occurred at Paterson's house on the night of June 27, and the morning of June 28, corroborating the evidence of the petitioner. His version of what co-respondent exclaimed on being caught, was, " Shoot me, shoot me, and spare your wife, old chap." At the close of the examination of this witness the Court adjourned until this morning.