DIVORCE AND DAMAGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17256, 4 September 1919, Page 8

DIVORCE AND DAMAGES.

AN UNFAITHFUL WIFE.

MARRIED MAN CONCERNED.

JURY AWARDS £250 AND COSTS. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT. J HAMILTON, Wednesday. A divorce action, which was defended by the co-respondent but not by the respondent, came before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve to-day. Dyle Montague Trethowen (Mr. Rogers) sosght a divorce from Coleta Stella Trethowen, on the grounds of her adultery with Theodore Jephcoate (Mr. Macdiarmid), who was cited as co-respondent. Petitoner, a cycle engineer, said he was married in Auckland in 1916, and soon after he and his wife came to live in Hamilton. For three or four months their married life was happy. They went to Morrmsyule, and stayed at the co-respon-dent s boardinghouse for a few days. After that they went to live in a house of their own. Jephcoate rented the ground at the rear. Mrs. Trethowen complained of the co-respondent making himself familiar. Witness next movedinto a house owned by Jephcoate. His wife still complained that Jephcoate persisted in visiting her. One night when witness returned home he found his wife had had liquor. He said nothing, bnt went to bed, and the next morning found that she had got the liquor from Jephcoate. Subsequently there was a row in the house owing to his wife's drunkenness. Witness was summoned for assault, and to save her name he pleaded guilty. Witness then decided to move to Hamilton in the hope that his wife would turn over a new leaf. For a few months in Hamilton there was no trouble, but later it was resumed, and petitioner alleged that his wife had committed misconduct with the co-respondent. Charles Ernest Beachem, a carpenter, who, with petitioner, followed respondent and co-respondent, gave corroborative evidence regarding the misconduct. Corespondent called upon witness and offered him £10 to know nothing about the matter. Witness declined the offer and this ended the interview. I

Theodora Jephcoate, the co-respondent, said he had lived in MorrinsviHe for seven years, and kept the Royal Boardingbouse. He denied pestering Mrs. Trethowen during her husband's absence, or supplying her with liquor, and he denied the*allegation of misconduct. Witness was married and had a wife and four children, the eldest of whom was 20. Cross-examined, witness denied offering £10 to Beachen to know nothing about the affair.

Robert W. Stewart, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, Hamilton, said he knew co-orespondent and his wife to be on affectionate terms. Co-respondent bore a high character in the district, and was connected with various organisations. Counsel for co-respondent said he had intended calling co-respondent's wife, but as she had not arrived he would close his case.

After an hour's retirement the jury found that respondent did commit adultery with co-respondent, and awarded £250 damages. A decree nisi was granted, and judgment was given for £250 and costs on the highest scale.