DIVORCE ACTION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22833, 14 September 1937, Page 14

DIVORCE ACTION

CEOWN INTERVENTION

FINAL DECREE OPPOSED CONCEALMENT ALLEGED EVIDENCE BY HUSBAND The adjourned action in wliicli the Solicitor-General intervened to oppose a decree nisi being made absolute was resumed before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supremo Court yesterday. The petitioner, Geoffrey Squire Eadley, fruit and produce merchant, of Christchiircli (Mr. Finlav and Mr. Mackay), obtained a decree nisi against his wife, Dorothy Whaley Radley, from Mr. Justice Fair on November 16 last on tbe ground that • n separation agreement entered into between the parties on August 26, 1932, had been in full force and effect ever since.

On behalf of the Crown, Mr. V. 11. Meredith, and with him Mr. Cleal, intervened, alleging that the decree nisi was obtained contrary to tho natural justice of the cause, owing to material facts being concealed from the Court. The Crown alleged, on the evidence of diaries kept by the respondent, that the parties had been together on 175 occasions after the separation and that the separation had been definitely terminated in June, 1934, when the wife complied with the husband's request to return and live with him. Witnesses for Wife

The examination of Mrs. Radley, which occupied several days early last June, was completed before the case was adjourned.

Continuing the evidence for the respondent yesterday, Mrs. Edna Graham Macky said Mrs. Radley was a very industrious woman in her home and treated her children with great kindness. Witness described an occasion when Mrs. Radley had sent for her to intervene because Mr. Radley was sending away the children's clothes after them to Christchurch. Witness' husband and she tried to effect a reconciliation between the Radleys. Radley said his wife had a very bad temper and ho would not agree to live with her again. Rewa Radley, aged Hi years, a daughter of the parties, gave evidence about the time when she was livingwith her mother in Christchurch. She said that her father came for her mother in his car in the evenings fairly often and took her out. Mrs. Ada Radley, an aunt of the petitioner, said that on one occasion while she was staying with the Radleys, Radley did not come homo until 3 a.m. and Mrs. Radley Mas very upset about- this. Incident in 1930 In 1930 when Radley spoke of getting the children away from their mother, witness continued, she told him ho had not a hope as Mrs. Radley had been very good to them. Dr. Margaret Knight said she had attended ilrs. Radley when she had a bruise on the temple and on ono side of her face. There was a large bruise and her eye was black. Witness found her at Papatoetoe with no furniture in the house and one daughter with her. She had a severe chill through having slept on the floor. She was |a very devoted mother, always putting the happiness and comfort of her children before her own. ■ Dr. Neil McDougall said he had a very high opinion of Mrs. Radley's care of her children, who were always beautifully kept. He considered her an ideal mother and a competent housewife. At ono stage Mrs. Radley was very worried, and complained of her husband's association with another woman. Radley denied to witness that there was any truth in the charge. Solicitor's Evidence Miss Ellen Melville, solicitor, described an occasion in December, 1931, when she had been summoned to the Radleys' house in Cecil Road, Epsom. Mrs. Radley was hysterical and the house was stripped bare of everything, including food. Radley did not give any reasons for leaving the house, but refused to reconsider his decision to go. Mrs. Radley was very anxious to avoid a separation.

Mrs. Radley was worn out with the campaign directed against her, witness continued, and the children were being used as hostages against her. She became willing to agree to conditions that were really unacceptable, rather than* lose the young children. This closed the evidence for tho respondent. Mr. Finlav said the case depended essentially on questions of fact and he proceeded to call evidence. The petitioner said he was married in July, 1913, at the age of 19, when Mrs. Radley was 27. Things were quite all right for the first three months, but after that life became progressively more unpleasant, especially when he endeavoured to assert himself. Mrs. Radley had a bad temper and always wanted her own way. He found it impossible to continue to live with her and left her in 1927. General Unhappiness

He was afterward persuaded to try again, petitioner continued. His wife was never on speaking terms with his mother. The general unhappiness in the home led him to consult .1 solicitor for a separation. He denied that there was any ground for his wife's jealousy as expressed in her evidence. She had always tried to make a teetotaller of him. but without success.

Witness gave his account of his voyage Home with his wife in 1930, contradicting many allegations she had made. He said he sent his children to Christchurch in 19.'30 because she had threatened to kill them. He agreed to return to her in the following year after long negotiations, because that was the first occasion she had admitted that her temper was at fault. He described the circumstances of his getting a new hoihe at Papatoetoe with a view to making a fresh start. His wife would not go to Papatoetoe and they had been separated ever since.

The examination of tho petitioner will be continued to-day.