LOVE AT THE PICTURES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18354, 21 March 1923, Page 11

LOVE AT THE PICTURES.

UNUSUAL DIVORCE CASE.

WOMAN AND COAL CARTER.

FORGIVEN AFTER ADMISSION

A divorce action with some unusual features was heard before Mr. Justice Stringer and a jury of 12 at the Supreme Court yesterday. The petitioner was William Reid, of Auckland, carpenter (Mr. Sellar), who alleged that his wife, Ivy Priscilla Iteid (Mr. West), had committed adultery with Ernest Roland Waters, carter, of Masterton, who was cited as corespondent. The respondent did not put in an appearance, and Mr. West said he had received no instructions to withdraw the defence, nor could he offer any evidence on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Sellar intimated that one of his witnesses could not reach Auckland in time for the hearing, but he thought the available evidence would be sufficient. If not he would ask for an adjournment. The facts as outlined by counsel and supported by petitioner in evidence were that the parties wfcre married at Te Kuiti in 1913 and there were two children. Until 1916 they lived at Aria, and after a period In camp as a joiner, petitioner established a home in Masterton. Co-respondent was the man who delivered the coal, and plaintiff got the first suspicion of his wife's relations with him from an indelicate remark respondent was reported to have made to Waters. They both admitted that the remark had been made, but said there was nothing in it. His work took him into the country, and he then heard that respondent went to the pictures with Waters and that their attitude toward one another in the darkness of the theatre was one of affection. When he asked Tus wife about this she hit him with a vase and rendered him unconscious. When he recovered respondent had left the house. At that moment he heard co-respondent's coal cart passing and he ran out. Waters raised a piecu of wood as if to strike him, and then whipped up his horse and got away. His Honor: But where was your wile? She had gone away. His Honor: Oh, I see. She was not in the cart? No. Wife's Admission Torn Up. After stating that he found respondent and co-respondent together in an hotel at Featherston, petitioner said his wife signed an admission of intimacy with Waters. After some discussion and for the sake of the children witness told her that if she would have nothing more to do with Waters he would forgive her and tear up the admission. This was done. About this time the employer of Waters complained, in the presence of respondent, that Waters was wasting a great deal of time about Reid's house, and said the horse driven by Waters was so used to stopping in front of the house that it could not be driven along that street without halting. Subsequently respondent left home, leaving a note to the effect that she had thought she could change and make things happier, but she found this impossible. After a long search he found her working in a boarding house. She had taken the youngest boy, and he had traced them by means of a circular containing a photograph of the boy, which he had circulated through schools and institutions. She refused to return home and he secured possession of the boy. After the commencement of the proceedings respondent had seized the oldest boy. An admission by co-respondent was put in. William Land, carpenter, of Remuera, said ho was employed in Masterton for 12 months from August, 1919. He had often seen Mrs. Reid and Waters at the pictures. One of them always came into the theatre after the lights were down and left before they were switched on again. He had seen respondent with her head on Waters' shoulder while the pictures were being shown. His Honor's Attitude. His Honor said the case was in a somewhat peculiar position, and he thought he was justified in the circumstances in adopting a somewhat unusual course. If no defence had been put in it would have been left to him to decide without a jury. Had the case been tried before him alone be would have had do hesitation in finding that adultery had been proved. Respondent, however, had filed a defence, as a result of which the issue of adultery had to be tried by a jury. The question was whether the evidence convinced the jury. If not, he would, allow petitioner an adjournment to secure the evidence of the other witness. • The foreman of the jury said they did not require any further evidence, and without leaving the Court the jury found that adultery had been committed. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute at the ' expiration of three months, costs being allowed against the co-respondent. It was mentioned that the custody of the children would be the subject of other proceedings.