DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17234, 9 August 1919, Page 12

DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE.

A 'FARMER. I ; * *'. x ''"' .■" V*' ;■'" :; V ''" .";"';-''' ■' .:,-■> ■ ""'"''"■ ■■■■'■ \ ' ..'•. "'!.'■.;"< -' : ' /- 1 ' 1 i'- V :t--.'''■ "";■'-"'.: : ;-;"v,:V- :' ■' <i\ '] WIFE ' AND- E&EOTLOYEE. j MISCONDUCT ALLEGED, ] A defended* action for divorce, ©a the 1 ground of alleged misconduct oa '''the part of the .. petitioner's wife, was heard.-"by Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of 12 in; the Supreme Court yesterday." The pet*--. tiuner was Charles Grant, farmer and can- 1 tractor, of Wbangarei {'Mr. Iteed, K.C., a id Mr. Anderson), and the . rcsoondsni wan Eliza Grant (Mr. Prendergaet), while i David Marshall (Mr. Gliphant) was cited: as co-respondent. Mr. &e«d elated that Mr. end Mrs. Grant were married in 1805, and lived in tin; augara d strict until 1916,,wheal tic respondent expressed a strong desire to livo in Auckland. As she persisted,: and as it was in the interests of has bod's education, the petitioner buut her ft house m Epsom and she went to live there in D"cornb<ir, 191 fa. He used to come to the oily occasionally alter that, and they c< iespunded regularly. On jne occasion j he <;a*ae to Auckland without notifying his v. At and soon alter his arrival at the rouse the co-respondent, Marshall, who had for* liicr.v been in bis employ, came in without knotting. Rome months later he Fai:iign,ged Marshall on the farm, hot in << ustqiiOTce of something that occurred lie uncharged him. His son, aged 13, told h m that Marshall frequently slept in tine house. The boy subsequently repeated his > t vlcments in the presence "of his mother, who did not deny them. It was assumed thai Mrs. Grant would not defend the d - ansa proceedings, as she made no specific denial up to acertain point, and even handed the petitioner a letter written to her solicitor, saying that she did not wish to defend the case. Marshall, than came to town and the respondent took up a d-liferent attitude, preeumably with the object of shielding him. " J ..ce petitioner, in evidence,: said that v -no stage the respondent told him she ' ,*d a written statement, to her solicitor Uiat she had misconducted herself with a man whose name she refused to disclose. Later she said that Marshall had forced her to defend the ease. Cross-examined by Mr. Prandergaat, th* petitioner said he was '* romfflgggbA}' of! and had enough to five on." 1 j~ Mr Prendergast: We suggest that iSHF having had the help of your wife and step- *•>:« 'or years, and retng now. ft m"«a of norm; means, you want to turn your wife d drift and form another matrimonial attachment. •■ - The petitioner * denied this. In answer to further questions he said be had often .'■s many as 11 employees staying in his houfiir- at Whangarei. and Ids wiife had to do all the housework., cooking and washing, with the assistance of a ; servant and an old man who did odd job*. It was not | true that he had had marital relations 1 with his wife since the divorce proceedings || were started. * - ": !' *fi- || Cornelius Grant, _ aged "15 ctSfc- of., the' M petit ■;nm'. was giving evidence When the Iff Court adjourned- until th's morning. <;*,; ..i....,...^,^,..,....— ■ '■ ~J