UNUSUAL DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17327, 26 November 1919, Page 7

UNUSUAL DIVORCE CASE.

ADMISSIONS BY A WIFE.

DENIAL BY CO-RESPONDENT.

WELL-KNOWN FOOTBALLER CITED.

A rather unusual divorce case was heard at -the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve.

The petitioner, Gordon Hcdder (Mr. Singer), motor .mechanic, of Auckland, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Florence Evelyn Hodder (Mr. A. .Moody) on the ground of misconduct, Karl Ifwersen (Mr. Paterson) being cited as the corespondent. No defence had been filed by the respondent, but the action was defended by the co-respondent.

I It was explained that on the application of the co-respondent an order had been made by the Court severing the issues in th 3 case as against the respondent and the co-respondent respectively, and that no statement made by the respondent, unj less it had been made in the presence of the co-respondent, could be admitted as I evidence against the latter. | The Judge said this was the first occasion on which such a severance of issues had been made in New Zealand. Counsel, outlining the case for the petitioner, said it presented rather unusual features, inasmuch as no defence was offered to the petition by the respondent, who had admitted having misconducted herself with the co-respondent. Mr. and Mrs. Hodder had gone to Sydney from Auckland hist March, and had returned with the New Zealand League football team, of which the co-respondent was a member, at the end of July. During the I visit of the team to Sydney the co-respon- : dent became acquainted with the respondent, and it was alleged that acts of mis--1 conduct had been committed by them in .Sydney, and subsequently in Auckland. Evidence by Petitioner. The petitioner gave evidence that he was married to the respondent in 1912, and had lived with her in Auckland and Sydney. There were two children, the youngest being five years old. In March last witness and his wife went to Sydney, and resided there till July. Petitioner had known the co-respondent for about two years, and when they met in Sydney he invited the latter to his home on two occasions. He had no cause to suspect : there was any familiarity between the respondent and the co-respondent in Sydney. I Petitioner and his wife returned to New i Zealand in the vessel on which the foot- : hall team travelled. At various times in Sydney and on the boat witness advanced money to the co-respondent, in the form of friendly loans, amounting to about £18. These had not been repaid. He had seen the co-respondent about three times since returning from Australia. Petitioner said he and his wife on returning from Sydney had resided with his mother-in-law, Mrs. Smith, at York-street, ParnelJ. On September 24 petitioner visited Whangarei, and returned on October 4. The following morning Mr. Cronin, who was married to Mrs. Hodder's sister, spoke to him, and on Monday he wrote to the co-respondent asking the latter to meet him, but received no reply. The same evening he questioned his wife's mother and subsequently his wife, and in consequence of what he was told left the house. The following day respondent made a statement in writ ; ng that wa3 witnessed by petitioner's uncle and Mrs. Cronin, the respondent's sister. Witness commenced proceedings for divorce on October 9.

Admissions by Petitioner. Cross-examined, petitioner said his wife was sixteen years old when she was married. He had obtained particulars of the alleged acts of misconduct between the respondent and the co-respondent from a confession made by the respondent to her mother. Hie petitioner admitted that he had suggested to the co-respondent that if the latter would pay the costs of the action petitioner would place himself in a. position that his wife could divorce him. He explained that ho had made the suggestion out of consideration for his children and his wife's family, and was prepared to take the stigma of the guilty party as long as the divorce was obtained. He admitted having visited certain houses at Brisbane and Toowoomba. and stated that he had not misconducted himself on any occasion that his wife did not know of and had not forgiven. The petitioner denied knowledge of a telegram sent in his wife's name to the co-respondent on October 8, asking the latter to meet Mrs. Hodder at 7.30 that evening. Later in the proceedings the petitioner was recalled, and said he then remembered that he had sent the telegram at the request of his wife. Allegations of Eyewitnesses.

Mrs. Jane Smith, mother of the respondent, gave evidence that on Sunday night, September 28, about ten o'clock, the corespondent, accompanied by another man, came to her 'house, and asked to see Mrs. Hodder. The latter, who was in night attire, slipped on a cloak and went out on to the verandah, leaving the door ajar. Mrs. Hodder was introduced to the corespondent's companion, whose name witness thought was " Dick " Percival, and after a few words the latter went away, the co-respondent saying ho would meet him later. Witness then went into the front bedroom, the window of which was onen. She could see what occurred on the verandah, and witnessed an act of misconduct between respondent and corespondent. Cross-examined, the witness said «She took no action to prevent what happened on the verandah, as she- was too astounded. '

Wni. Patrick Cronin, launch-driver, of Fox Street, Parnell, gave evidence that lie was married to a eister of the respondent. On Sunday evening, September 28, the co-respondent came to witness's house, and asked for Eva- Hodder. Witness suggested that it was Mr. Hodder who was wanted, and Ifwersen said he knew Mr. Hodder was in Whangarei. Witness said : '' You had better be careful; no funny business here." The co-respondent said "It is all right." Witness then told corespondent that if he went round to Mrs. Smith's house he would meet Mrs. Hodder. Witness went ■ through the back way to Mrs. Smith's, and saw Mrs. Hodder go out and meet Ifwerson at the front door. Witness went out the back door and " hung aboutS' He heard co-respondent say " Hullo, Girlie," and the respondent reply " Hullo, Karl." There was another man with the latter, and he was introduced to Mrs. Hodder. He then left, Ifwerson saying he would meet him at the corner. Witness stated that he then saw an act of misconduct take place on the verandah between respondent a/id corespondent. Arthur Norman Smith, brother of the respondent, gave evidence that he saw the co-iespondent leaving the gate of his mother's residence about ten o'clock on the nieht of September 28. Evidence was given by Alfred Edward Smith, a brother of the respondent, aged 15, that, he had given messages from his sister to the co-respondent, asking the j latter to meet her after football practice, I i .On one occasion the co-respondent had ! given the witness three shillings, and told him that "lie knew nothing." This closed the, case for the petitioner. Co-respondent in the Box. Counsel for the co-respondent said the evidence for the defence was that the respondent, who was introduced to the corespondent in Sydney, appeared to have become infatuated with the latter, and was alwavs endeavouring to seek Ins company The co-respondent did his utmost to avoid meeting'the respondent The co-respondent, who described himself as a farmer, crave evidence that he had met the petitioner in Sydney when the New Zealand League toot ball team was in Australia. Witness and a, friend visited petitioner's house in Sydney, and met the respondent. The latter told him then that she was very unhappy. This apparently was in consequence of a remark &r. Hodder had made to his wife

earlier in the evening. -Subsequently ia Sydney he received several messages and telephone rings from tn e respondent. One was that the children hr.d been sent out with the housemaid, the husband was away, and that the co-respondent had better com© and see her. He. did not go. He denied having been in the respondent's company on the days on which it was alleged he had misconducted himself with her in Sydney. Another Version of Visit. After giving details of his actions immediately prior to his departure from Sydney for Newcastle, witness said that, at Newcastle Mrs. Hodder came up to him and said that if he did not speak to her she would smack his face. He replied: '' I wish you would do it in front of your husband." During the voyage to New Zealand he saw Mrs. Hodder only twice, and said " Good morning " to her. On several occasions while training it Victoria Park, Auckland, prior to tl. a tost matches, a boy approached him and said his sister, Mrs. Plodder, wished to see him. Once, when he went to find out what she wanted she asked him to meet her that night, but he refused. Hi> denied that he gave the boy any monev to go away. The respondent had also rung him up on the telephone, and asked him to see her. In .me of the test matches he received a kick, which necessitated four stitches being inserted. On Sunday, September 28, the injury was in a. serious condition. Accompanied bv 1 ercival, he went to Parnell that evening to see Mr. Hodder. He went first to » wrong house, the man who answered the door being in a very excitable state, and having a bar of iron across his ehoulder. H e said: " Last time someone came hero I smashed his head with this bar." 'Subsequently witness found Hodder's house and was told by Mrs. Hodder that her husband was at Whangarei. Percival was a yard or two away all the time witness was talking to Mrs. Hodder. and accompanied him to Newmarket immediately afterwards. The mgtt time co-respondent saw Mr* Hodder was on October 9, when, in consequence of a telegram from her, he met her at the Domain. She said : "I'have confessed." H asked her what to. She did not reply, but started crying, and asked him if he would be co-respondent. Shesaid that in the event of hi.= doing so she would pay all costs. H 6 refused, and told beto se e Ins solicitor. He made an appointment for her, but she did not keep it. " Because I Am Innocent.'' To Mr. Singer: He had an interest with his brother in a farm at Clevedon. He spent about three months there "before and after last Christmas. That was not his only experience of farming. It was not correct to call him a professional footballer any more than others who played League football. His friend Percival was a grain merchant, and before the war was a professional jockey. Witness had never kissed Mrs. Hcdder. The admissions made by the respondent, and the evidence of the other witnesses were fake When Mrs. Hodder (old him she had confessed to misconduct, he did not ask her with whom.

Mr. Singer: Why are you contesting the case. °

Witness: Simply because I am innocent Evidence in support of the co-respon-dent s case was given by Ivan Stewart-, Williams, and Richard Percival. Dr. N. Drier gave evidence concerning the injuries sustained by Ifwereon in the football match.

Counsel addressed the jurv, and th» Court adjourned until this morning.