UNUSUAL DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17650, 10 December 1920, Page 8

UNUSUAL DIVORCE CASE.

ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUOI - ' MAN ANU HIS # NIECE. = ■ 'DENIAL' BY RESPONDENT. , Unusual features were revealed in a defended ' divorce • case /heard at • the Supremo Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Cooper and ft 'm Of 12; 10 petitioner, Kate Smith (Mr) McLim,^ structed by ; Mr,' Matthews), 6 onghU^ solution of her marriage with Art Samuel Smith (Mr. Dickson), a hal -casta Maori, on the ground of adultery with tie petitioner's niece. ; . Counsel for petitioner said thq, parties were married in Auckland in June,,1917, and there were, two children. Until; the birth of the first child, in' March, 1818, they lived .happily together, but afterwards respondent became neglectful, and on more than one occasion struck the petitioner. In June, 1920, petitioner received information by letter from her niece, that while, petitioner was in; the nursing homo on the occasion of the birth of ( her first child, the respondent had committed adultery with her niece, ; against the will of the girL . Directly she received this information the petitioner resolved to leave the respondent, and did bo in August. . • Evidence was given by the petitioner as outlined by counsel. Since August 27 she had received £1 a week from rcspondent for the maintenance of the children. Her niece, then aged about loi was keeping house for the respondent during petitioner's absence, and was to have remained an indefinite period, but left ft week after 1 petitioner's return home in August last' petitioner received .a letter from the respondent begging her to for- . give him, and give him a final chance. The respondent and witness had discussed the matter referring to her niece. At ' first respondent denied the alleged misconduct, and later he asked if she would •forgive him the " accusation in the petition The witness refused to do so, and impendent said, "Well, you cant prove it, and I'll deny it to th? bitter end. She had not cohabited with respondent since receiving the letter from her niece. •Witness had no personal knowledge of toe respondent having committed any acts of misconduct. , Any information to this effect had como from her mother, niece, or filS t er ■* '> ■ Counsel was proceeding to question the . petitioner regarding letters written by a third party to her mother, but . the judge refused to allow the letters to be put in. • Counsel said the mother-in-law was at the bottom of the whole trouble. . .. . ,His Honor: I don't think you can attack the mother-in-law j she is not be.ore the Court. . ; • : ' *;.<■ . Counsel J She will not come. . Witness: ' ' She has never been asked. ; - Several letters written by the respondent to the petitioner after the latter's departure . for Taumarunui, were read by ' counsel. In these the respondent appealed to the petitioner not, to widen the put | between them,, for tho 6&k© of the clul- . Evidence was given by the petitioner's i niece regarding the alleged misconduct by ■ respondent. ' She said she threatened to tell her aunt; hut did not do so, owing to the latter being in indifferent health. Cross-examined, witness admitted, having given birth ■to an illegitimate child .in April,: 1919. The' respondent was not the father of her child. . ' Opening - the case for the respondent counsel said the ■ petitioner's whole case . depended'on the uncorroborated story of a, girl. The circumstances were most peculiar, and respondent was convinced ; that 'his mother-in-law, was at the bottom of the whole trouble. ' '' Evidence was given by the respondent s that he and his wife had lived on fairly happy. term 3. . Marital relations had been I maintained between them* till a few days ;. ; before the petitioner 5 left -him.: . He' had not been on. good terms with his motherI in-law, because he did not agree with her in regard to . her attitude toward her ' husband. ' Respondent here stated em- [ phaticatly that he had nothing, against his wife. Ho still loved her and the children. ~ They were the victims of a'.'.put-up job." He denied that ho had misconducted himII ' self with his '.wife's": niece. Immediately 1 he became aware of the allegation of adulI terv he went to his mother ; in-law's place 1 at Taumarunui, and denied it to his wife. Cross-examined, respondent said that ' when he wrote asking his wife to forgive I him, he was referring to a bread-throwing . incident, when, he :had also used bad : language. > " . -■ t Counsel's addresses will be heard.' today. - The Judge said the issues on which , the Court should be addressed .were whether. the respondent had' admitted mis--5 conduct with the niece, and, if so, had the petitioner condoned the offence, i > - =============== t . r===z . 3