DIVORCE PETITION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21951, 7 November 1934, Page 16

DIVORCE PETITION

HUSBAND'S ALLEGATIONS DENIAL MADE BY WIFE Further evidence in a defended petition for divorce on the ground of alleged adultery -was heard before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The petitioner \caj Paul Emile Calame, jeweller, of Queeu Street, Auckland (Mr. Sullivan), and the respondent, Nora Calame (Mr. Finlay and Mr. Grant). Matthe* Hogan, of Auckland .(Mr. Henry), was named as co-respondent. Respondent, in evidence, said sh* had first met Hogan at a friend J place about a year ago. She had seco him more or less frequently sine*. She had not been guilty of any misconduct with co-respondent at unj time.

Oil April 19 Hogan had informed lie f that ho thought he was being watched, afc which she had been surprised. Hi® next day witness called at her bus* band's office. "1 asked him what h* meant by having me and inv friends watched,'' said witness. Her husband had denied it completely, and tola witness she did not know what she was talking about. She had been given to understand that neither she nor liW friends were being watched, and sii® went sway contented. Witness suo* stantially denied the truth of the evidence given by the two inquiry agents, and snid her honour was entirely i" ! * sullied. ~i The hearing was adjourned un' to-day.