DIVORCE SOUGHT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23052, 1 June 1938, Page 16

DIVORCE SOUGHT

HUSBAND'S PETITION £IOOO DAMAGES CLAIMED DEFENCE DENIES ALLEGATIONS JURY FOREMAN RETIRES A divorce action in which tho petitioner claimed £IOOO damages against the, co-respondent came before Mr. Justice Call-in and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. 'I ho action was brought by Henry George Donald, of Auckland, fellmonger (Mr. Sullivan>, against Agnes Mary Fanny Donald (Mr. Dickson) and David Bridescn, of Auckland, butcher (Mr. Allan J. Moody find Mr. Webster), who was named as the co-respondent. Tho petition was based on tho ground of adultery. In addition to a divorce decree and £IOOO damages, the petitioner sought custody of hi:* 14-year-old son. Both respondent and corespondent denied the allegations of adultery. The parties "were married at Auckland on April 24, 1916, it was stated, and have two children, a daughter born in 1917 and a son born in 1924. Selecting the Jury In the selection of the jury each of the three counsel exercised his right of challenge to tho full. As a result of a communication from the foreman to the registrar, it was agreed to hear the ,caso with only 11 jurymen, the -foreman retiring and another being appointed in his place. Mr. Sullivan said the parties had lived together happily for many years. The evidence would show that after Mrs. Donald and Brideson had been caught together at Orakei in March of last year, Mrs. Donald went to live at Bridcson's home at Mangere. Two homes had been broken up. The petitioner would rely chiefly on what had actually been seen, but there would also be evidence of what was heard on a microphone. Petitioner said that shortly after ho found his wife and Brideson together at Orakei she said she was leaving him. He gave her furniture in order to make a home far herself and the children, but 'he found that she took this to Brideson's home. Up to a few days ago she ivas still living 111 Brideson's liomo. Loss of the Children In answer to Mr. Dickson, petitioner said it was the ,loss of his children ho was convplainrng about. Ue had been instructed by his solicitor not to pay more than. 10s a week maintenance for his son.- His children and their grandfather also went to live at Brideson's. He had not made any financial provision for his wife since she left him. He knew that Mrs. Brideson had entered into a deed of separation with her husband. A private inquiry agent in his evidence said lie took a dictaphone or listening-in instrument with him, and would be prepared to give a demonstration to tho Court with it if required. Witness said that with his micro-phone-he could hear * a fly walking across a pane of glass. His Honor,: And to the untrained observer that might-be taken for Mr. Brideson walking across the floor? Further was heard from associates of the inquiry. agent, and the pase was adjourned until this morning.