APPLICATION FOE DIVORCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15915, 12 May 1915, Page 5

APPLICATION FOE DIVORCE.

EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE,

HUSBAND'S ALLEGATIONS.

Some extraordinary evidence was given in a defended divorce case heard yesterday at the Supreme Court before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper ami a jury of 12. Tim patties to the suit were Walter Hartnnll. a farmer, of Ruaranji, Whangarei. petitioner, and Bernice Mabel Hartnnll. respondent. Dissolution of the marriage was sought on the ground of the wife's alleged misconduct, Alfred Hilford. farmer, of the same district, being joined as corespondent. Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., and with him Mr. Black, represented the petitioner, Mr. Prendcrgast appeared for tho resident, and Mr. Kirker for the ci - respondent.

! The story told by Mr. Reed in opening ! for the petitioner, and supported by the I latter in evidence, was to the effect that I Hartnoll's house stood in an isolated posiI tion at Ruarangi. The co-respondent, lived I in the vicinity, about half-an-hour's w.i ; I away, and they had known each oil.or j since they were schoolboys, i'etitivier and respondent were married on January 12. 1905, he being then 36 years old. They j had no children. He and his v : ?e got on very well together until TJuly or August last. About, the time, the war broke out I the co-respondent ordered the Hxif.;.r» I from Auckland in petitioner's name, and jto be sent to the latter 1.-.ure. ">.e paper used to arrive three times a -reekon Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sawrdap. On those occasions the co-respondent would come over, and would stay all n'ent. occupying the same room as" the respondent, and petitioner would hear him leading the news to her. Prior to that Hilford had been an occasional visitor, and petitioner did not suspect that anything was wrong for some time. Subsequently, on the nights when the co-respondent was in the house, the respondent used to light the candle in petitioner's room, and then take her departure. He would not see her again till next morning, but would hear her conversing in the night with Hilford.

Husband Engages Private Detective. The petitioner, who is ve-y short in stature, though thick-set and swarthy, went on to say that he was afraid to protest to the co-respondent about his conduct, the latter being over 6ft high, and much stronger than he. Having seen respondent and co-respondent occupying the same bedroom, however, petitioner remonstrated with his wife, who, he said, admitted her misconduct, but wanted to know what harm she was doing to him. This sort of thing went on for two or three months, and then, feeling desperate, petitioner saw a solicitor at Whafigarei, and on his advice came to Auckland and engaged the services of a private detective named Lewis.

Petitioner returned to the farm on October 2 last. Lewis followed him, and applied to him for work, remaining as an employee. On the following Tuesday night petitioner and the private detective obtained evidence of the alleged misconduct. Petitioner told co-respondent that ho could take the respondent away and keep her, as he himself would have no more to do with her. Respondent said, "He will do that all right." Petitioner thereupon asked her: "Are you goinp now?" and on her replying in "tho negative, he said, "Well, then, I am," He then left, followed by Lewis, and tho co-respondent, who had ocme outside the house, reentered it and closed the door. Since then petitioner had been allowing his wife £1 per week.

Cross-examined by Mr. Prendergast, petitioner said respondent proceeded against him last April for maintenance. During their life on the farm his wife had worked hard, helping him in milking and fencing, even following the plough, and collecting kauri gum. As to co-respondent witness was always afraid to "tackle" him. He had never made any complaint to him about his conduct. On the evenings when Hilford was at the house petitioner used to play cards with him and associate with him in a fairly friendly way. Witness denied having had improper relations with a certain woman. Ho also denied that on the night of Tuesday, October 4, when the detective and himself kept their vigil, his wife came out of her own bedroom and asked him what lie wanted. When discovered in tho compromising situation to which he had sworn, the respondent certainly did exclaim, " Walter, you are going mad."

Tears After Quarrels. In reply to Mr. Kirker, witness said the co-respondent had a quick temper buS he had never known him to assault anyone. Petitioner never complained about his wife's conduct either to her relatives or to his own. When he had trouble with her ho would go out of the house, taking an axe or a book and would work for a while. Then he would go back to the* house and sit down and think it out, and perhaps cry for half an hour or so. Ho did not believe in standing and nagging for two or three hours.

Richard Elstreo Lewis, commercial traveller, stated thai in October last he was in the emplov of Wilding's agency as a. private detective. Ho corroborated petitioner's evidence as to what happened on the night of October 4, - This closed the case for the petitioner

Direct Denial o! Allegations. The respondent then entered the wit-ness-box, and flatly contradicted the main points in the petitioner's evidence. She emphatically denied ever having occupied the earao bedroom as the co-respon-dent.

In cross-examination by Mr. Reed respondent said she had«spoken to her husband regarding another woman, but had not complained about it to co-respondent. When the latter stayed at the house all night it was by the genera] invitation of petitioner. The co-respondent did not stay at her house on the fecond day after her husband left her. She thought on the night of October 4 that her husband was trying to manufacture evidence against her. She did not think a man guilty of such -despicable conduct was one a woman would wish to live with again.

Authorship of a Letter. Mr. Reed thereupon asked witness whether or not she wrote a letter which be produced. Respondent occupied 6everal ■ minutes in closely reading the letter, then marked certain passages which sho disclaimed having put in. His Honor examined the epistle and said it was all written by one person. Respondent said the writing was like her own, but might have been copied. Mr. Reed: Peculiarly enough, the other side have asked us to produce this letter. After further questioning respondent admitted having written a letter to her husband after "the scene of October 4, but swore that it was not the one produced. His Honor pointed out to witness that if it should prove that the letter was the one she wrote she would be committing pe.jurv. ! Mr. Reed read a passage from the i letter in which endearing terms were I used, and which purported to be a request from respondent to her husband to come hick to her. Respondent' emphatically denied having written the parage quoted. Other passages r.'ad by Mr. Reed sho admitted having written. Mr. Prend>"rgast suggested that he might have an opportunity of considering the letter with his client. Further cross-examination drew a definite statement from the witness that the signature to tho letter was not hers; it was a forgery. . His Honor said he would give the witness wit'* 1 this rooming to reconsider her attitude .. the subject of tho letter, ITo did not not wish to see, tier place herself in a false position. The case was adjourned accordingly. ■