RIVAL DIVORCE SUITS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17329, 28 November 1919, Page 9

RIVAL DIVORCE SUITS.

! WIFE'S PETITION GRANTED. ECHO OF EARLIER CASE. HUSBAND'S CHARGE FAILS. The hearing of the divorce petition of Lilah Markwick (Mr. Singer), against Harold Markwick (Mr. Inder), and the counter-petition of the husband against the wife was continued before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve at the Supreme Court yesterday. The wife's petition alleged that the husband had committed misconduct with Elizabeth Leach, and the husband's petition alleged that the wife had committed misconduct with William Jones. Elizabeth Hunter, formerly the wife of Richard Leach, said that Leach left ! for the front in April, 1916. She first met Markwick in February, 1917, when she answered Uia. advertisement for board. When he was staying with her they were never alone in the house, and there was never any familiarity between '.heir,. He generally called her " Mrs. Leach," except when her lady friends were present and as they called her " Kitty " he did so too. She had not been in good health since her youngest child was born seven years ago, and in August, 1917, she had to undergo an operation. After Leach returned from the front in March, 1918, he tol.l her to get out, as she was no further use to him. She proceeded against him for maintenance, and he told her he would br°ak her heart and make her want to jump off the end of the wharf. Leach obtained a divorce from her last February, and she had since married again. She had never had any intention of marrying Markwick. To Mr. Singer : She declined to give the date of her marriage to Hunter. She . locked upon. Markwick as a brother, and railed him " Harold." Leach never ark--d her to " give up " Markwick. Jessie Leach, aged 13, daughter of the previous witness, said she slept with her

mother during the whole time her father I •was away. Markwick never entered the bedroom. This concluded tho evidence in defence of the petition. Dealing with the counter- | petition. Mr. Inder called three witnesses l to support the allegation of misconduct ] against Mrs. Markwick. Two of these ; witnesses were women who had lived in the same house as Mrs. Mark wick, and i they said she was of very good behaviour and did not stay put late at night. The third witness was a young man who met Mrs. Markwick at a dance and walked home with her. He knew she was married . Mr. Tnder stated that as the evidence was totally different from what he had expected he would call no more witnesses and would ask leave to withdraw the I' conn uar -petition. leave to withdraw the counter-petition. , The judge said that as evidence had been heard that course could not be followed. He directed the jury to return a verdict in favour of Mrs. Markwick and the >~0-resj>ondent Juaes on the counter-petition, on the ground that no misconduct had been committed. The jury acted accordingly. The issue put to the jury in the petition was : " Has Harold Markwick, the respondent, committed adultery with Elizabeth Leach? " After a retirement tast- ; ing 45 minutes the jury returned a verdict in the affirmative. The judge granted s decree nisi, to be moved absolute in three months. Costs 1 on the higher scale were awarded against tae •♦'.rpondent. After pome discussion on the question of custody of the child of the marriage it was decided that it should remain with its grandparents at Otahnhu pending an orde r determining in whose custody it \ should be placed. *'