DIVORCE SUIT FAILS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17914, 17 October 1921, Page 7

DIVORCE SUIT FAILS.

i * I I THE HAMILTON PETITION. I J (.TRY ADDS A RIDER. SYMPATHY WITH PETITIONER. • [RT TTTLECiRAPH OWN CORRESrOXXIHKT.] | ! I i HAMTT.TON. Saturday. The defended divorce case in which j Thomas dames Mateer, fireman, of Mata- j : mata iMr. Singer, instructed by Messrs. ■ Waits and Armstrong), petitioned for the! 1 dissolution of his marriage with Erne I I Evelen Maieer (Mr. Cox) on the ground iof adultery with Charles C. Goodwill, j motor mechanic, Hamilton (Mr. North- j j croft), from whom damages of £200 were | claimed, was concluded before Mr. Jus- | tive Stringer and a jury in the Supreme I Court to-day. Respondent, cross-examined, denied that her husband objected to her working at night. She was quite satisfied to see him I once a fortnight, and did not want him j f to find her a home in Matamata. I Mr. Northcroft said co-respondent was i not a young " larrikin " as suggested by I pettioner, but held an important position j as manager of a large garage. The posi- I tion was that petitioner having contracted ! a marriage of necessity now wished to get j rid of his wife by dragging in a respect- ! able hard-working married man. Counsel j described it as a blackguardly attempt to wreck a man's life for petitioner's own selfish ends. Charles S. Goodwill said he had been married Sve years. He lived 2| miles out of town, and generally had lunch and j sometimes tea at the fish shop where re- i spondent had been employed. He had been going there for some time and knew the staff well. At the proprietor's sug- ! gestion he frequently had meals in the I kitchen. On May 11 he was at home. j The next night he worked late and had I tea at the shop. As it was a wet night I respondent suggested that he should drive her home. He left with her at 7.35 p.m. and drove her straight home. He got back at 7.50 p.m., and the fish shop proprietor commented on the brief period he had been away. Several days later he saw Mateer, who said, " You took my wife home the other night." Witness replied that was so. Mateer, alluding to something his wife had said, then took his coat off but another man made him put it on. Mateer then drew witness aside and said that as Mrs. Goodwill was in hospital it would look bad for him, and suggested fixing it up. Witness refused to have anything to do with him. A few days later Mateer again asked what witness was going to do, and he replied " Nothing." Mateer said he had paid £50 to his solicitor for a divorce, and it was not right that he should lose it. He asked if witness would make it up. Witness said that if petitioner thought he had a case to go on with it. He. thought Mateer was blackmailing him and he consulted his solicitor. Later witness saw Mateer and Lee. Mateer again asked what witness was going to do as he could not lose £50. Witness said he knew nothing about it, whereupon Mateer said to Lee *' You see he confesses." Witness described Mateer's evidence as to confessions as absolute lies. He had never been ' out with Mrs. Mateer, either alone or with others. Respondent's employer said he had ! never noticed any familiarity on, the part iof respondent with co-respondent. On the j night co respondent drove her home witI ness commented on the brief time that j Goodwill was away. Georges A. Maxwell, motor mechanic, j and a fellow-workman of Goodwill's, cor--1 roborated the evidence of Goodwill re- j 1 garding tho interviews with petitioner. 1 Counsel addressed the jury at length. I The jury was asked to answer the folI lowing questions: (1) Has it been proved! I that respondent committed adultery? (2) ! If so, did petitioner condone such adul-! tery ? (3) If adultery was committed,! . what damages, if any, is petitioner en- 1 titled to? The Judge said that if the first ; was answered in the negative it was ' unnecessary to answer the other questions. ft or a short retirement the jury answered the first question in the. negaI 1.1 ve, and added a rider that they unani-I j mously expressed sympathy with "peti- : tioner in not having produced sufficient , evidern e Costs were allowed to respon-! den! and eo respondent. i -