DEFENDED DIVORCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19953, 23 May 1928, Page 14

DEFENDED DIVORCE.

HUSBAND'S CASE SUCCEEDS. SOLICITOR TAKEN TO TASK. WARM REBUKE BY JUDGE. A defended divorce case occupied Mr. Justice MacGregor and a jury ot m the Supreme Court yesterday. Ralph Goidon Player, builder, Auckland (Mr. McLiver), petitioned against Elizabeth Frieda Wilhelmina Player (Mr. Singer), on the ground of adultery. Ihe defence was a direct denial of the misconduct alleged. An order had been granted enabling petitioner to dispense with tho naming of the co-respondent, pn the ground that the man had not been identified. Tho jury found the respondent was guilty of the offence alleged, and the decre nisi was granted, to be made absolute after three months. Mr. McLiver said tho parties were married in Auckland in December. 1912. They lived at Frankton and then in Auckland, apparently quite happily until last October. The wife then left tho husband, and while he was away at work took away the furniture. By agreement petitioner paid her AL2 a week, and the parties were not unfriendly. On January 14 petitioner went to do sonn work about the house where his wife was living. She had told him she would be out at the time, but ho discovered she was at home with a male visitor. A man who was working with petitioner was also a witness. "Go for Your Life!" Petitioner described how he had visited his wife's home early on the evening of January 14, with a man to help him to make The house was locked and quiet at first, but ho lffcard suspicious sounds. While he was listening under the house he heard a man go to the back door and be admitted by his wife. When he surprised them through the front window his wife said to the man, "Go for your life! That is my husband." The man went. Respondent was afterwards brazen about what had happened, and said, "Anyway, who would believe what yod say ?" In cross-examination, petitioner said it was not true that his wife and he had lived happily until last October. He did not know why she had sought a separation from him three years ago. He denied he had ever been drunk, but admitted that as a result of his conduct his wife took proceedings against him in the ■Magistrate's Court and a separation was agreed upon. He owed sums of money to his wife at the time she took the furniture. He was quite aware that his wife had complained at times of his drunken habits. Mr. Singer was putting to witness that the man who was with him at his wife's house on January 14 went away at witness' request when His Honor objected that this was incorrect. Mr. Singer said he had it in his notes. Counsel's Note Not Correct. His Honor: You need not bother about your note, Mr. Singer. These are the official notes. Mr. Singer (reading from his note) : "Southgate at my wish went away." His Honor: That is not correct. Mr. Singer persisted that he had written this down. His Honor: I am not accustomed to having my notes shown to be incorrect by a memorandum of counsel. I will not have it. Mr. Singer: I am not questioning Your Honor's notes for a moment. His Honor: But you are Mr. Singer said ho was simply questioning the associate's record. His Honor: His notes are my notes, and you know that very well, Mr. Singer. The evidence is as I have stated. Mr. Singer: Then I am simply labouring under a mistake which Your Honor will forgive me for. His Honor: Very well. Get on with it. The record reads: "Did Southgate remain? No, he left." Mr. Singer said his note read "at my wish." His Honor: Your note is wrong, because he said nothing of the sort. It was exactly the other way. Tho witness w r as anxious for him to remain. Mr. Singer: Then I can only apologise for having made a mistake in my note. " Very Effective Answer." A further question by Mr. Singer about an answer that came from the room in which respondent was, led His Honor to interject again. "Follow the notes," he said. "There is not a word about an answer. The only answer apparently was pushing the window down on his head. That was a very effective answer." Another reference by Mr. Singer to his notes was checked by His Honor, saying with some warmth: "Will you be good enough to accept my ruling that your note is again wrong ? You are simply trying to mislead the jury. It is very shortsighted. You will not do it." Mr. Singer protested that he had no intention whatever of deceiving the jury. His Honor: Very well, then. Kindly go on with your questions. Witness denied almost entirely tho account of a conversation he was alleged to have had with his wife's brother-in-law, Mr. Rice. Evidence in corroboration of petitioner's story was given by Arthur Southgate, contractor, who supported the essential points in the allegations against respondent. Case for Respondent. Mr. Singer, in addressing the jury, said the case was most remarkable, for in 99 cases out of 100 where such allegations -were made tho co-respondent was named and produced. Counsel submitted the husband had no excuse for not producing him. The wife's story was one of constant ill-treatment throughout her married life, until she finally left last October. Respondent, in evidence, said I cr husband and she always quarrelled. He used to get drunk twice a week and throw things about. He was drunk when he visited her house about money on January 14. She denied all the allegations made against her. Several witnesses gave evidence in partial corroboration of respondent's story. Mr. Singer, in his final address, claimed lis was entitled to disagree with the note even of an associate who was a much younger man than himself. Petitioner had not decided to take these proceedings until he had been pressed for maintenance. Referring to the evidence of the witness Southgate, His Honor said that unless he had absolutely perjured himself in Court that day then Player's evidence was true in substance and in fact. If they thought Southgate was telling the truth they would certainly find for petitioner. The jury came to an agreemont after an hour's retirement.