SUIT FOR DIVORCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21572, 17 August 1933, Page 11

SUIT FOR DIVORCE

-husband claims jeioob COMPANY DIRECTOR CITED CO-RESPONDENT'S DENIALS COMPLETION OF EVIDENCE Tlio hearing, \uis continued in the Supremo Court yesterday, boforo Mr. Justice Smith and a jury, of the action for divorce brought by Kenneth Rahiri Georgo Richardson, of Auckland (Mr. Weston and Mr. Hopkins), against Mona Mary Richardson (Mr. Singer). Petitioner alleges misconduct on the part of respondent and claims £IOOO ns damages from Harry. Reginald Jenkins, company director, of Auckland (Mr. Johnst6nc and Mr. Lovogrove), who is cited as co-respondent. Respondent and co-respondent deny the allegations. Yesterday marked the sixth day of the hearing, which was resumed with the co-respondent giving evidence regarding his visit to the Waipapakauri Hotel. Mr. Johnstone: How long did you stav in room 5 at the hotel P Witness: Possibly an hour to an hour end a-half. Who was in the room?— Mrs. Richardson and her brother. Was there any time at which you were left alone with Mrs. Richardson? —No. Who did you leavo the room with?— Her brothef 1 . Where did you go?— Straight to bed.

Did you leave room 12 after you went to it, -.that night or next mornj n(T ?—J did not, ' until I got up to breakfast. Were there that night, or have there been at any time, relations betweon you and Mrs. Richardson ? —There has not. J. am not an immoral man. And you deny it?—l totally deny it. Visit to Te Paki • * What were your hopes with regard to Mr. and Mrs. Richardson? —I hoped - for their o'wn sakes they would bo reunited/ Witness said he rose at 8 o'clock next morning, had breakfast with Morrison, Mrs. Richardson and her brof.her and went on to Te Paki. He told Richardson ho had seen his wife at the Waipa'pakauri Hotel ' and that she told him she had offered to ■return to petitioner, ■ and that petitioner had imposed conditions. Witness said to petitioner, ''Why impose cond?tions?" Petitioner said she had previously suggested leaving him on more than one occasion, and he felt, now the break , had come, that it would be useless going on. Witness and Morrison left Te Paki about 3 p.m. They_ left that day because of tho state of the tide. About 8 p.m. they reached the Waihou Hotel, Rangiahua. Mrs. Richardson and her brother were there, sitting in the commercial room with some other people. said he did not know the number of the room allotted to him, but with the aid of a plan he indicated it as being some distance from the rooms occupied by the others. Mr. Johnstoner Were you Mrs. Richardson's room at the Waihou Hotel? • . Witness: Not-at any time. I did not exactly know her room. I got up at 9 o'clock next morning. It was Sunday morning. Were the church bells pealing in Rangiahua?—They may have been. Disposal of the.Car

Some arrangement was made whereby you drove Mrs. Richardson home?— Why was that ? —She was very tired with driving and more or less knocked out.

Was there anything more in it than that? —Nothjpg more. There has been some comment that the car was seen in the neighbourhood of the Otways' home for some time after your return? —I was attempting to sell it. They wanted a car. It was eventually exchanged for another car, which they took in place of my car. They paid for it? —Yes, £SO. It has been said that, in company with Mrs. Richardson, you went on your launch from time to time? —Yes. Who was a member of your crew? — Ted Otway, always. Was he on the launch on all occasions when you went out? —Always. Were you ever on the boat alone with Mrs. Richardson? —Certainly not. There was always a party there. Witness said he paid another visit to Te Paki. He took Otway, who wished to inspect a property. They came home through Kerikeri, were impressed with the quality of the land and saw the area in which he eventually took a part interest. He had no intention of acquiring land for himself. The inquiry for the land was made after the present divorce petition was launched. Mr. Johnstone: One section was for yourself? Witness:' Yes; An Allegation Denied Who was going to look after your place?—My brother. He is up there now and has been for some months. The witness Foley tells us you drove Mrs. Richardson to Titirangi ?—Mrs. Richardson was not in the party. Witness. said there* was nothing wrong with petitioner's work at Te Paki and he did, not want to accept his resignation. The first complaints he heard about petitioner came from Morrison. Richardson's mistakes were mf»de only<tythrough lack of knowledge. He certainty,, was a trier. Morrison was installed as'H]ianager. After his discharge Morrison siffcd the company, which declined to pay him, and the matter was still beforo the Court. Witness said he had a conversation in his office with Morrison. It was not correct to say ho told Morrison that if lie kept his nose out of the affair witness would ■ settle with him. "I told him Hichardsori had done his best," said witness, "and that he had tried to make bricks without straw. I said Richardson-had left there as a gentleman. That is the conversation as far as I recollect it."

Mr. Singer: You know nothing what- - ever about the private detective prior to Mrs. Jtichardson and her brother leaving for the trip north? Witness: Nothing whatever. It was no concern of mine. •As far as you know they had loft Auckland a Week before you did? — That is so. ' " Good to be Olti-lashioned " Yon did not know where they were, or whether she had returned to her husband ? —I had no means of knowing. Keith and Ted Otwav have told you from time to time pf the incidents at .Te Paki complained of by their sister? '—That is so. Cross-examined by Mr. Weston, witness said it would not be true to say that between Christmas, 1931, and Christmas, 1932, his wife and family had been supplanted b,y Mrs. Richardson, and' her family. Mr. Weston: You were shocked boyond measure at the language employed by Miss Kember in her letters? —Yes. Might it not be that you are a little old-fashioned and have missed a phase of youth of' the past year or two? —It o is good to bo old-fashioned in those 3 things.

Are you so old-fashioned as not to be aware that an attractive married *onian, living apart from her liusoancl, is a potential source of danger? "-Kot to mo.

That, in fact, she is a live electric wire, which it is dangerous to touch? —Not to me. A very fine woman. I put it to you that you wero practically a grass widower?— That is not true. 1 suggest that as far as Mrs. Jenkins and yourself were concerned you were a grass widower?—Wo were on the best of terms and always have been. I suggest to'you that in July you took Mrs. Richardson out to the Hunua farm? —I had arranged with petitioner's father to go out one day. Mrs. Richardson wanted to go and she, her mother and I went. On one occasion or two?—On one occasion. Was that the occasion jou dug up the roses?— Yes. They wero sent up to Te Paki for tho garden there. When was it that Mrs. Richardson asked you to interveno between her husband and herself?—lt was peti'tioner's father who asked me in tho first placo. She did not ask mo to intervene. She asked through her brother if she could see mo and put to mo her side of tho business. Motor-car Transaction On March 18 you stayed tho night at Waipapakauri ? —Yes. Why did you not stay at Rangiahua that night?—We wanted to get as far as we coufd and catch tho tide next day. Was it suggested that you should drive Ted Otwav back to Auckland and that Morrison should drive Mrs. Richardson ?—There was no suggestion in that direction. You agree that when you spend a day in a car together you get to know each other pretty well, if it is a man or a woman?— Yes. You heard the suggestion I made that the motor-car was a present from you tocher?— That is quite untrue. Are you in a position to show the jury proof that you received tho money from Mrs. Otwav?—l did not hold the receipt. I can only assure the jury that I received £SO from Mrs. Otway. I told her son that if he could get mo £SO in cash I would accept that. He did, somewhere about that time.

It is the most difficult thing in the world to conceal the passage of money? —I had no occasion to conceal it.

Can you produce proof?—l told you before I am almost certain to have given a receipt. Have you any record of receipt by you of £SO from Mrs. Otway?—No. I had no reason to have a record. 1 receive and pay out a lot of money. Most men in a large way of business like yourself pay every sixpence into their banking account? —I have not done so. This money was received in notes? — Yes. Name In the Transfer W T hen you make payments in cash you have no record? —I just hold the receipts. You have no books?—My bookkeeper has. I look after my private affairs. * You have heard my suggestion that Mrs. Otway has no money?—l have never seen want in thoir home.

Was it your car or tho milking machine company's car? —My car. There is no doubt about that.

Can you say how it was transferred to Mrs. Richardson instead of Mrs. Otway?—That is news to me.

Who gave instructions that Mrs. Richardson's name be put to the transfer? —I suppose that would bo done in the office of the engineering company. One of the staff. I have suggested that Ted Otway received from you the present of the use of a milking machine?— That was a new type of machine that had never been out before. I was anxious to put it into a place where it could be watched most secretly. I thought that his being a bachelor, his farm was a suitable place. It would be charged up to me. I went out to see it working on several occasions. His new tenant offered to buy it and I believe it has been sold to the tenant.

I suppose it is correct to say the use of it was a present?—Oh, yes, the use of it. But he had to put in motors and separator. He obliged me more than I obliged him. Is it a fact that you called Mrs. Otway "Mother"?—l deny it emphatically. Property At Xerikeri

Witness said he drove Ted Otway's family to the Crow's Nest, Titirangi, to oblige Ted. In a previous year the launch Shenandoah had cost him £6OO to run. The year following, as a result of T£d Otway's assistance in cleaning the vessel and looking after the engine, it had not cost him £6.' The taking of the family to Titirangi was one of the occasions when he obliged them in return. He did not visit Titirangi while they wore staying there. JVlr. Weston: I suggest the first intention of buying the property at Kerikeri came from Mrs. Richardson and her sister ? —That is correct. And you suggested coming into it, with'your brother?— Yes And you all had equal shares?— When my brother withdrew 100 acres were allotted to me and Mr. Otway and his sister were to get about 70. How was the money to -be found; £2OO deposit and £SO next November. And the-£2OO was paid?—l paid £2O and Otway paid £IBO That was not equal shares?— Well, 1 had to take the responsibility of the November payment and the quarter s did they find the £180? I have n °Did you help them at all? —Certainly n °Would your books bear inspection on that ppint?—There would be no books dealing with that transaction particularly. My cheque vouchers would show it probably. Do you expect Mrs. Richardson to find any more money for this property?— Yes, I think they should be self-supporting from the start. " Nothing Dishonourable to Hide "

If Mrs. Richardson has to find her share how do you imagine she is going to find it? —From the income. I am not concerned with Mrs. Richardson's side of finding the money. ' You do not know how she will find it? —And don't care, if you want it bluntly. Will you tell us of other occurrences when you have seen Mrs. Richardson? We have only learned of these other times with great difficulty.—l do not agree. with you. If I could recall I would willingly tell the jury of every time I have seen her. 1 am not ashamed of it. I have nothing dishonourable to hide. Mrs. Richardson is a friend of mine and I hope 1 shall always retain her friendship. Did your association with Mrs. Richardson cause any talk? i\ot that I knew, until recently, until this oetition. Then the dogs were barking it. to use a phrase. All Auckland knew about it All the lawyers in Auckland knew. All my staff knew of it before the issue of the petition in this case. In July, 1932, it came to your ears that somebody was talking about \ou and Mrs. Richardson?— Yes. Morrison said Richardson had told him that he had had it from three reputable people that you had lived with Mrs. Richardson at Devonport.— That was Te Paki talk, not Auckland talk. As a man of the world you must have known that if there was anything in this talk it must have come from Auckland? —I do not admit I am a man of the world. Well then, as a man of common sense? —Not if that is common sense. You were told at Te Paki, but it referred to Auckland conduct?— Possibly. It was untrue. , Did it not occur to you to be a fair thing to protect her name?—l' have done nothing to injure her name. It did not occur to me. Did you warn Mrs. Richardson of these rumours? —Not that I know of. It ia reasonable that I would tell her. ,

Here is this report, that three people said you were living with her at Devonport, and do you tell me that if you were a man with a Bpeck of honour you would not tell her? —No. What about all these launch trips—tho buying of property—is not that an association?—To an evil mind, yes. Do you suggest that your conduct, after hearing this information from Morrison, did not lead to these proceedings?—Thero was no association. I put it to you that if you had not been committed up to the hilt with Mrs. Richardson you would have cut tho association? —What do you moan? I suggest you wero so committod that you could not cut the association? —lt is not true. I must ask you a question about your wife. —I thought you would have spared my wife. On all thesi motor and launch partics, lias your wife beon there?—My wife and family went with mo on week days. Were you on good terms with your wifo in i 932 and 1933?—1 was. I put it to you that Mrs. Jenkins is a' deeply religious woman ?—Yes. Sho is what you would call an austere woman? —Sho lias very deep religious views on some questions. Wo have sensibly agreed to differ on vital points of religion. Has it affected the leal intimacy of your married life? —I would not like to say that. Divorce Not Asked For Has Mrs. Richardson affected your relations with Mrs. Jenkins? —No. . Have you asked your wifo to divorce you?— No. Did you not tell your wife you wero in love with Mrs. Richardson ?—lt is untrue. Did you not resort to the trick of saying that you would impute misconduct to her?"—l did not. Did you ask Morrison to keep his nose out of your private affairs?—He is the last man I would have said it to. I had no occasion to say it. You admit that if he saw you coming to bed at the Waipapakauri Hotel at four o'clock in the morning it would bo to your interest for him to keep his noso out of your affairs?—lf he saw mo yes. . ~ , , , , Why did you go into the lady s bedroom at all? You are ono of tho oldfashior.cd kind, so you told us.—There is not much comfort in that hotel, and when her brother suggested I should go in, it was-a reasonable thing to go and hear what sho had to say. Thodo says that when he turned the electric light engine off you were not in your room ? —'Either Otway or myself' turned off the light. Morrison was asleep in bed with his face to the wall. He did not move when Ave went in. And Morrison's story that you came in at four o'clock? —It is not true. And who paid next morning?—l paid. Otway gavo me a ton-shilling note. So Thode is correct when he says you paid?— Yes. That is one thing ho is correct in. Counsel Addresses Jury Re-examined by Mr. Johnstone, witness said l»o liked to spend as much time as possible on the launch Shenandoah. It was a relaxation after tho business worries of the week. Mr. Johnstone: In tho case of Sunday your wifo and you do. not view it in the same way? Witness: I am not an irreligious man. It is the only thing that is keeping the world together to-day. Mr. Johnstone: It is just that you do not view in the same way this matter of Sunday observance. James Wylie gave evidence that he visited Te Paki with Jenkins. When they returned Mrs. Richardson came to Auckland with them in their motor-car. Her husband had asked witness to bring hor, as her teeth had to be attended to. This concluded the hearing of evidence. Addressing the jury, Mr. Johnstone said not even the most sacred things which exist for a wifo had remained uninvestigated. It was still, however, a question of whether or not misconduct had occurred on March 18 at tho Waipapakauri Hotel. He was confident they could answer that the charge had not been proved. Petitioner had assessed the value of his wife at £IOOO, and they therefore' had to consider what was the value of respondent to her husband. If she had brought any value into their common partnership it had long since been lost, as the evidence showed. "Not a Traditional Case"

There could bo no possible foundation for a belief that Jenkins in any way influenced respondent to leave her home. Petitioner had commenced an affair which had lasted to the present day. From January, 1931, he was secretly engaged. From that time he had concentrated his mind on marrying the girl, and the only way to do that was first to get a divorce. "What then did he lose in his wife?" asked counsel. "Nothing." This was not the traditional case of some Lothario stealing away the affections of a wife, but the case of a man who wanted to get rid of his wife and at the same time get £IOOO. He could not have his cake and eat it. _ Counsel said ho would submit that petitioner could not point to any scrap of evidence that there was a disposition on the part of respondent and corespondent to commit misconduct. No one could suggest that Jenkins had done a single thing other than to interest himself in a kindly manner in the affairs of an unfortunato couple. "Morrison was the informer," said Mr. Johnstone. "It was he who poured the poison into the greedy ears of Richardson. 1 put it to you—did he inform in the sacred interests of justice and truth, or was ho influenced by the fact that he had lost his job and had a grievance Jenkins?" The hearing was adjourned until this morning, when the addresses of other counsel will be heard.