UNHAPPY COUPLES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15687, 14 August 1914, Page 3

UNHAPPY COUPLES.

PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE.

SUPREME COURT CASES. husband's ALLEGATIONS, " v FtmiHEE divorce business was dealt with before Mr. Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court yesterday. Adultery formed the ground for the application of Albert Berry Proud (Mr. J 0. Martin and Mr. A. sDenniston) for tho dissolution of his marriage wit* Agnus Mary Proud (Mr. Mowlam). Frederick Piddock (Mr. A. E. Skclton) was joined as co-respondent.

The petitioner staled that his marriage took place, in St. Paul's Church", Auckland., in 1900, among hi places of residence being Auckland, Sydney, Brisbane, Christchurch, Dimedin, and finally Dwonport. He was a commercial traveller at tho lijno of his marriage. When Jiving at Dunedin ho suspected that Ins wife was giving way to drink. Soon afterwards lie moved to Auckland to enter business on'his own account, and as a result of his work was frequently absent from home. Towards tho end of last year ho noticed a changein tho tone of his wile's correspondence which became irregular and less atteotwuate, while- there was frequent mention of Piddock's name. Ultimately he decided to have his house watched, and tho report ho received upon his return from ono of his trips left him aghast. A little later ho returned unexpectedly from a business trip, and on going to Ins homo in Calliope Road, Devonian, at ten o'clock at night found Piddock and tho respondent together. The same night his wife left tho house.

Evidence as to tho frequency of Piddock's visits was given by a domestic, Hilda Growl©, who stated that on several occasions sho had seen them embracing ono another. They had not seemed to mind her presence at all. The respondent always called co-respondent "Fred." Mr. Mowlam: And what did you call him?— used to call him " Fred," too. His Honor: Did ho kiss you too!— Yes, .he did kiss mo, once; only once. Kathcrine Cassidy, aunt of the co-re-spondent, stated that one night during April Piddocfe had promised to spend tho evening with her. He did not arrive, howover.soshe went to the Prouds' house about 10.30 p.m. There she found respondent and co-respondent having supper, and warned them that their doings wero the subject of public talk. Mirgaret Bate, of Calliope Road, Devonport, stated that early one morning she saw a man, whom she did not know, coming out of a side-door of the Prouds* house. She knew Proud quite well. Mr. Denniston; Could you recognise the man?— No. *

His Honor (laughing): Well, what is the good of tho evidence. It might have been the milkman.

Harry Murphy and Alexander Murphy, Devonport residents, also gave evidence, the latter saying that lie had seen tho corespondent kiss respondent, who used to sit upon the co-respondent's knee. Further evidence will Be taken to-day.

APPLICATION ADJOURNED. Emily Ruth Speight (Mr. Anderson) applied for a divorce from Benjamin Speight on the ground of the latter's alleged drunkenness and failure to maintain cither her or her children. Evidence in support of the petition was given by petitioner and a clergyman, and tho case was adjourned until Saturday,