HAWKE’S BAY DIVORCE CASE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1695, 24 August 1904, Page 15

HAWKE’S BAY DIVORCE CASE

!A SHEEP-FARMI3R RESPONDENT. TALE OF DOMESTIC MISERY. A DIVORCE GRANTED. ' On Wednesday Mr Justice Cooper and a common jury heard a petition by Louisai Margaret Gray, Wellington, for disso- 1 lution of her marriage with Adam Gray, sheep-farmer, Hawke’s Bay, by reason of his alleged adultery with divers women whoso names were unknown, in Napier and elsewhere, during the years 19t)l, 1902, and 1903. There was a crOiS-petition filed by the respond- • ent for restitution of conjugal rights. It was agreed to take both petitions together. Dr J. G. Findlay appeared for the petitioner in the wife’s suit, and Mr M. Chapman, with Mr E. H. Williams (Napier), appeared for the respondent. The following jury was empanelled: —Richard Brown, Bl( Willis street (foreman) ; Leo Francis Uaynor, Petone; Arthur Goldfinch, t>9, Aii.trn street; Frank Otto Weine, 70, Constable street ; John William Copithorne, 19b, Ingest p& street; William Herbert Isherwood, 15, Scarboro terrace; Robert Henry Ellis. Kelbume; Richard W'hite, Petone; Henry John Mcekridge, Petone; J ohn Henry Lankshear, Wadestown; Charles Bothell, Rintoul street; and Jesse Stuart Griffiths, Richmond street. COUNSEtL’S OPENING STATEMENT. Dr Findlay, in opening the case, said he was asking the jury to grant a divorce which would end an unhappy five years of marr.ed life. The other side asked for a restitution of conjugal rights, which theoretically would mean a continuance or miserable union. But the motive of the respondent's action was not really restitution, but dissoluton —it was the very reverse of its ostensible object—because if he succeeded iD getting an order of the Court which would not bo obeyed by his wife, he could then proceed for dissolution of his marriage, and make the disobedience of the previous oider o-f the Court a ground for cota.nteg it. In tne present case there was something more behind it. becau e if the hu-.band succeeded, he would escape the whole, or at Least the main, burden of his Wife’s maintenance, while he woukl also benefit under a marriage settlement existing between the parties. The parties were married in November, 1899, and left on a trip to England the day afte. wards, remaining away for a period of seven months. On' their return, sir Gray, who was one of the fortunate men who had a father of means, went in for sheep-farming near Waipawa. Ho had £4OOO in oaJi, and an interest under a marriage settlement. Counsel said that apart from the grievous wrong this woman had suffered through the respondent’s infidelity and neglect, on the financial side she had beon shamefully treated. The money she had received from her hut-band since 1901 was only what she was entitled to under the marriage settlement, and which for the present year only amounted to £4l. Hie respondent had never tried to main mm a home for his wife, " and had added to her troubles by compelling her to live upon her parents. THE WIFE’S EVIDENCE. The petitioner, Louisa Margaret Gray, was the first witness called. She deposed, in answer to Dr Findlay, that her maiden name was Littlejohn, and that she was married to the respondent, Adam Gray, at • her -mother’s house, in Wellington, cn November 9th, 1899. The day after their marriage they left for England, and after a seven-months’ tour returned to NewZealand. Her husband bought a station two miles from Waipawa, and she went there to live with him. In December, 1901, she came to Wellington to her mother's house to be confined, and her child was born in February, 1902. She stayed with her mother until April fallowing, and during those four months her husband never visited her, although she had written to luro. several times. ‘The child was exceedingly delicate from birth, and she informed her husband of the fact by letter. Her husband, she believed, was at Waipawa, at his statmn, all the time, and he came down to Wellington in April of 1902. He stayed at her mother’s house, where he occupied a separate room.' While living there he was out late every night, and sometimes she did mot hem* him come in at all. He gave no explanation of his absence on such occasions. One Sunday in April, 19p2, her sister gave her a bangle, supposed to be silver, which, she stated, she had found in the respondent's bedroom when tidying it up. When he oamo in she asked him about it, and he said he found it in Napier. He asked to get the bangle back, as the owner might turn up, but she refused to-give it to him. After a time he said it belonged to a “friend.” She asked who the friend was, and he replied “Nobody that you know.” Witness asked where “ she ” was, and he replied “ in Wellington.” Witness asked where he went at night, and he made answer that he went to the theatre, and afterwards had a walk around town. She next inquired if he went alone on such walks, or if he took his “friend” with him. and hia re-

spouse was “ Sometimes.” She then accused him of adultery with this woman, ,and after extorting a promise that she would not- tell her friends, he admitted it. He stated at the same time that he :wanted to get rid of the woman, and that it would not happen again. He got the bangle back from her, and stopped in his bedroom during the evening. He went out again that night. About a week afterwards he returned to Waipawa. tie had sold his station there before he came down to ■Wellington. He next bought a station at a place called “ The Incline,” about forty miles north-west from Napier. She went up to see him, leaving her child behind in Wellington, and her husband met her at Napier. They stopped at the Criterion Hotel. Napier, 'on their way to “ The Incline,” and after remaining four days at the station, they returned to Napier, where I they remained two nights at the Cri- ■ terion. On the last night of their stay : there her husband remained with lier : until about 10 o’clock, when he went out. She went to her room, and from : it saw him meet a woman on the other j side of the street, and go away with her. On his return, about an hour , later, she taxed him with it, but he’ • assured her she was making a mistake. : She told him she thought he was behaving as he had been in Wellington, i but he denied it. Later on, however, 1 the same night-, he admitted having ; committed adultery with the other woman, excusing himself on the ground ■ that he had practically no wife, as the |! petitioner chose to stay in Wellington, i and that he was only doing as any other man would in similar circumstances. ; She returned to Wellington for her ' child, and in October, 1902, she went to • live at “The Incline.” Her mother ; was with her there. There her hus-

band’s treatment of her was disgusting and cruel. He called her “an ass’’ and “a fool” before the servants, and went away for days at a time. r lhe child was ailing at the time, and her husband said it was a nuisance, and ho wished it was dead. After five weeks at “The Incline,” they returned to Napier, as she feared the child was dying. She went to stay at the house of a Mrs Heifard, but her husband put up at the Criterion Hotel during his stay in the town. She had Dr Moore to attend bar child. Her husband visited Napier about once a fortnight, and lie always stayed at the Criterion. As the Napier climate was considered too hot for the child during the summer months, she, on Dr Moore’s advice, went to reside at Dannevirke. She spent five weeks ' there, but her husband never visited her while slie was there. On returning to Napier, she took up housekeeping. A second child was born in April, 1903, and that also was very delicate. Witness’s mother paid the medical and housekeeping expenses. During eleven months she had only received £9O from her husband, and that came to her under a marriage settlement. While she kept house in Napier, her husband stayed there sometimes, but generally put up elsewhere. While living there, she went for a walk one afternoon with her husband along the Marine Parade, on which occasion they were passed by two women, whom her husband saluted. Shortly afterwards, her husband said lie had to go, and witness rested on one of the seats. After spending about half an hour there, she walked further on, and saw her husband approaching between the two women he had previously saluted. As 'they met, her husband nudged his two companions—he did not extend any greeting—and all three sneered at her as they passed. She should say the women he was with were not respectable. She saw them afterwards in company with two men who

did not appear to be respectable. The witness produced an article which, she stated, she had found amongst lier husi band’s clothing. She had never seen it previously. After that, the marital relations between herself and her husband ceased. Witness identified a letter signed “D. Black,” ivliich she recoiv!ed on the Gth August, 1903. Her husi band carno J:o see her about the letter, and denied the statements contained in it. The interview with her husband j followed her sending him a copy of this j letter, and lasted only a few minutes. | She came to Wellington last October, ! and her second child died in February. I Her husband never,came to see her after i October, or when the child died. He | did not send her any message when he I heard of the death of the child. She j had seen advertisements in the “Hawke’s J Bay Herald” of several dates in the ! month of February last, in which | her husband, notified that he would not be responsible for any da) >ts contracted ’in his name without his authority. ! Drapery bills had been sent to her from ! tradespeople in ISapiei, which her liusj baud refused to pay. She had not rej ceived any money from her husband : since 1901, except the allowance to which ■ she was entitled under the marriage I foot t } evtient—£ 100 for 1902, £92 for 1 1903, and £4l for the present year. A-s under the terms of the settlement she was only entitled to half the full allowance when living apart from lier husband, all she had for the maintenance of herself and her child for the present year would be £4l. She and her child were living at her mother's house, and witness supplied whatever the child wanted. When her husband's infidelities were being discussed at. an interview before she left Napier, Abe offered to go back and live in liis house, but not as

his wife. He did not agree s to that. Her husband had sold “The Incline,’’ and had no home now that she knew of. Dr Moore considered “The Incline” not a fit place for her to live, on account of her child, and she was of the same opinion. By consent, counsel put in a letter from Dr Moore, in which lie stated he had attended the child, and that at ten months old it was only 101 b in weight, which would bo the weight for a child two months old. CROSS-EXAIMINATION. In cross-examination by Mr Chapman, the petitioner stated that her sister accepted the explanation her husband gave about the bangle. Her people knew that ho went into his room and cried all that afternoon. She told her mother of the Marine Parade incident; The witness identified a copy of a letter written by her husband at “The Incline” on October Bth, in which he addressed her as “Dearest Louie,” and stated “she was still as dear to him as eve?, in spite of what had happened, and that bo had absolutely no wish to go to the extremes he was entitled to go to.” He expressed himself “willing to agree to the proposal she had made at the hotel, provided that on her return to his house she did not show before strangers or others that anything had happened between them, and that she would at the same time promise to renew their previous relations, provided that nothing was proved against him within a rea.sdna.hle time—say, until Christmas or the New Year.” The letter went on to say—“l think that, taking everything into consideration, that is only fair and just to all parties concerned. I am sure that if you consider the anxiety and worry that we have both been put to. you will see that I am not asking anything unreasonable. All I am anxious for is that any honour shall bo vindicated in your eyes and other people’s.” ©to. In a reply sent by

her she stated —“I note your proposal, and in reply can only say that if nothing more comes to light regarding this serious trouble between now and the New Year, I can have no eho.co but to return to you then, unless you get a divorce, and grant me the:children. It is the' last favour I can ask from you. I am quite willing to let you get the divorce for the came you. mention, if only you will promise me the children. I lie idea of living again, with you is horrible to me after what lias passed.” At the interview she had with her husband at the Criterion Hotel before sho left Napier, he appeared to be in no hurry to see her. as she had to wait for about half an hour, and when he appealed lie told her that whatever she had to say sho had better say quickly, as he had to go to the theatre. She wished to know what he intended to do about the children, and he said ho intend d to claim them. The question of her returning to live with him was discussed, fehe agreed to return, but staled that she would not go a n.e, and would not go as his wife. He repl.ed that he was nbt going to bo “ bully-ragged ” into anything. Ho wc-u.d not give her a satisfactory answer. When she suggested having some woman with lier if she returned, he . asked who was going to pay the woman. Witness replied that she supposed he wouid. He sa.d he could not afford it. Slhe considered his means ought to be sufficient to enable him to keep a companion for her in the house. She estimated his means by the fact that he kept a buggy and a pair of horses at tlie hotel at six shillings a day, and attended theatres, concerts, balls, and dances —he went to everything—and spent, on an average, three days out of each fortnight in Napier. She admitted having received a letter from her husband last February, in which ho formally requested her to return by the 29th of that month, and intimated that otherwise he would be compelled to apply to the Supreme Court, for an order for restitution of conjugal rights. It was admitted by Mr Chapman that tho letter was drawn up by a lawyer. RE-EXAMINATION. Re-examined by Dr Findlay, witness identified the letter received by her on August 7tli, 1903, bearing the Dunedin post-mark, and signed “ D. Black.” It stated: — “Mrs Gray,—lf your husband had acted honest to me, and not passed himself off as a bachelor to me and my friend, I would not be writing to you now. He has got me mto trouble very badly—l am go,ng to have a baby, and ho is the father of it. . . v . I only found out about you three months ago, and I threatened to go and tell you, only he promised me plenty of money, and to take me to the or her side, and keep mo comfortable until it was born, but as he only gave me about half of what he promised me, I am letting you know about this; and also that if he docs not send me money to keep tho baby, his child, I will make it public, and make him pay. I expect he will say this is lies, but I have my friend to prove it is true. He thinks because I am poor, and have no friends here, that lie is safe, but perhaps tho girls will not be so ready to dance with him when they find him out. I must say you must be pretty green if you had no idea of how lie carries on, and not only with mo, as I found out. I would not marry him if I was asked to, but I will make him pay for it.—D. Black. P.S. —I hope you read the paper carefully I sent you.”

The witness went on to say that a newspaper had come about a fortnight before that bearing the Wellington post-mark. She did not know who it was sent by, but the handwriting on the wrapper was the same as that in the letter. The newspaper had disappeared very mysteriously. Before she went to see her husband at the hotel she had written to. him, but had not received a reply. She had written a letter which had not been produced that day. The letter of October Bth, in which he had addressed her as “ Dearest Louie,” and stated “ she was still as dear to him as ever, in spite of what had happened,” she considered was “ a bit put on for the occasion.” ELIZABETH A. LITTLEJOHN. Elizabeth A. Littlejohn, sister to the petitioner, gave evidence as to finding the bangle in the . respondent’s room, where it fell out of his clothes, and corroborated the petitioner’s testimony as to the respondent’s habits while at her father’s house in Wellington. C. R. DIX Cecil Ross Dix, law clerk, deposed that he was in Napier on legal business for his employer, Mr Jollicoe, in December last, and saw the respondent, whom he knew, passing along the Marine Parade oii the evening of December 27th or 28th. arm-in-arm with a woman who was not his wife. Witness followed them down a side street, but then lost track of them, as they disappeared. Witness had ascertained that the woman was a widow, and engaged as a small fruiterer. In cross-examination by Mr Chapman, the witness explained his having acted the detective on the occasion in question, as due to his having been a friend of the Littlejohn family for some six-

teen years. Before going to Napier he was aware of the trouble between Gray : and his wife, and he had promised Mr Littlejohn to have a “look around” while in Napier. Mr Chapman commented on the interest the witness had taken in the matter, when Dr Findlay reminded him that the late Right Hon W. E. Gladstone had acted in a similar manner on one occasion, and had found himself in the same position as Mr Dix. In re-examination by Dr Findlay, the witness stated that unless Gray and the woman with him, on the occasion deposed to in Napier, had “sprinted/’ they Would be in view when he readied the end of the side street. MARGARET LITTLEJOHN. Margaret Littlejohn, mother of the petitioner, gave corroborative evidence ~~as to the respondent’s habits and conduct towards his wife during the witness’s residence with them, and to the part she herself had played in supporting her daughter and grandchildren; This closed the petitioner’s case. THE RESPONDENT’S CASE. Mr. Chapman briefly opened for the respondent, stating that his client would deny the different charges made against him. Adam Gray, the respondent, was then called, and stated, in reply to Mi* Williams, that until recently he was owner of “The Incline” estate,about thirty-five miles from Napier. He admitted the facts testified to by his wife as, to their marriage, trip to England, and subsequent residence in Waipawa. He came to Wellington after the sale of liis Wai-. pawa property, in March, 1902. While in Wellington ho went out generally at night for a walk or to go to the theatre, but sometimes he remained in until 8 o’clock or half-past 8. The bangle alluded to had been found by him in Napier, and advertised, he thought, in the - Napier “Telegraph.” Neither then, nor at any other time, had he made any confession regarding any charge to his wife. -He believed his wife and Mrs Littlejohn were annoyed over the bangle, but his wife made ho charge against him. He went up to Napier in May, 1902, to complete the purchase of “ The Incline,” and his' wife afterwards resi detTthere for five or six weeks. She then left foi* Napier, owing to the illness of the child, and went to stay with Mrs Heifard. It was utterly false to say that while staying at the Criterion, in July, 1902, on their way up to “The Incline,” he had met a woman in <the street, and went away with her one night after leaving his wife’s company. His wife had never mentioned anything of the kind to him.- The statement by his wife as to the incident with the two women on the Marine Parade was also absolutely untrue. His Honor read over to the respondent *' the petitioner's evidence on the point, but the respondent still gave it an emphatic denial, and said his wife must have imagined it. Replying to further questions, he stated he had. never been in Napier with loose women, but he had a number of respectable acquaintances of both sexes in Napier. If such an incident had occurred ho would not be likely to forget it. He had no knowledge of ever having failed to recognise his wife. The article alluded to had been purchased at his wife’s request. He had no recollection of having called his wife an “ass” or a “fool,” or of having had any particular differences with her while at “The Incline.” He saw his wife at the house she had taken at the end of the ' Marine Parade on tlio Sunday morning following the receipt of the letter signed “D. Black,” in August, 1903. He denied any knowledge of the matter al- ' luded to in that, letter, and told her he would prove his innocence if it were to cost him every penny he had. He came down to Wellington, and had a conversation with Mr Littlejohn on the matter. Witness suggested that the police should be asked to trace the author, and he believed Mr Littlejohn instructed the police to make inquiries. Counsel banded in a letter from Alec I. Littlejohn to the respondent, in which it was stated that the writer had been informed by the Inspector of Police that all efforts to trace the woman “D. Black” had been fruitless. Witness remembered his wife visiting him at the Criterion Hotel, Napier,- in September last, about*a fortnight before she left Napier. His wife wanted the charge of the children, and he told her lie want- ' ©d to have them. They had a conversation about her returning to live with him, and this sho consented to do under certain conditions. Witness afterward consulted his solicitor, and decided to take steps to. obtain restitution of con- ■ jugal rights.. As to his having failed to maintain his wife lie had always paid the - hills,' and paid all the accounts now pro-duced“by-his counsel. He had never revtased to pay any accounts for his wife’s maintenance. His estate at “The Incline” consisted of 1692 acres,'and he took an active part in its management. r f, wan necessary in the working of his property that lie should go to town occasionally, and he was in the habit of going there at intervals of perhaps three weeks or a month. It was not for the purpose of absenting himself from his wife that he went to Napier. When lie went to halls, he had asked Mrs Gray to go with him, and lie never went to

out his mai'ried life he had never been guilty of an act of infidelity to Mrs Gray. CROSS-EXAMINATION. Cross-examined 'by Dr Findlay: He had known bis wife since 1890, and had never known her to be any more untruthful than any other woman. (Laughter.) Ho had been very much surprised at his wife’s evidence, which was black perjury or imagination. Do you call your wife an artistic and profound liar ?—I don’t say that, I suppose it is due to some extent to her imagination. In further cross-examination, the respondent admitted that the bangle lie had found in Napier was a worthless article. He had advertised for the owner in the Napier “ Telegraph,” but he would not swear that he had ever seen the advertisement appear; he had not taken any particular stock of it; he could not say of his own knowledge if it ever appeared. The advertisement was put in during the month of March, 1902. He did not know the employee’s name to whom he handed the advertisement; lie might have paid Is for its insertion. He afterwards found an owner for the bangle in the person of a Miss Gibson, from Green Meadows, near Napier. He met Miss Gibson, whom lie had known for seme years, in the street in Napier, and told her lie bad found a bangle. She said it was hers, and he gave her the bangle. He did not know Miss Gibson’s present address ; lie bad heard that she was married, but he did not know her present name; her other name was not “Mrs Harris,” as far as lie was aware. He had not stated to his wife that the bangle belonged to a friend, nor had lie made a confession of adultery. He suggested that the letter signed “ D. Black ” had been written by some person anxious to make trouble between him and liis wife. He had told- Mr Littlejohn that it was an attempt to blackmail him. No woman had attempted to blackmail him, nor had he ever given any woman occasion to. write to him in such a manner. The letter he had written, to Iris wife beginning “ Dearest Louie ” had enclosed a lawyer’s letter, and he had taken the copy produced in Court in view of Court proceedings. In bringing liis petition for restitution of conjugal rights, he thought his wife might return to live with him, but if she did not return it was his intention to seek a divorce. What you want is, not tlie return of this woman, but tlie means of coming into Court as a petitioner, making her respondent, and then getting a divorce? —No answer. The respondent stated, in answer to further questions by Dr Findlay, that the advertisement notifying that he would not be responsible for any debts contracted in liis name without his authority was inserted for various reasons; station-owners sometimes published such advertisements to prevent workmen contracting debts in their names. His reason was not to prevent his wife getting credit, but simply to prevent anybody running up a "bill m his name. This concluded the evidence on both sides and counsel agreed to waive their right to address the jury. While discussing the question of adjourning for dinner and resuming at 7.30 p.m., tlie foreman of the jury expressed the opinion that the jury would be prepared to give its verdict at that (stage. His Honor stated that there,was only one issue to go before the jury—“Did the respondent in the years 1901, 1902, and 1903 committ adultery in the town of Napier and elsewhere with divers women, whose names are unknown?” He was prepared to take the verdict by the consent of tlie parties, but if the jury desired that he should sum up the case he would do so. Several jurors expressed a desire that liis Honor would do so. THE JUDGE’S SUMMING UP. His Honor, in summing up, reviewed the facts testified to on each side, and told the jury that the respondent was entitled to say that the petitioner had manufactured her account of what had taken place on the different occasions referred to, if her account was not true. But then tlie jury must consider was she a woman so lost to all sense of honour as, for the sake of getting a divorce from her husband, to manufacture incidents like those deposed to, and support her story by false swearing? When they came to consider the respondent’s evidence, they should consider the reasonableness of that evidence. His account of how ho came by this worthless bangle, and how he advertised it, although admitting it was of little or no value, and his subsequent finding of tlie owner in Miss Gibson, seemed very strange. Miss Gibson might be a real person, or she might be like the mythical “Mrs Harris,” whose existence was so often referred to by Sairey Gamp. It was a strange thing that the respondent did not know Miss Gibson’s married name, where she was now living, or anything else about her. I:f he gave a false account of what had become of tlie bangle, it was difficult to accept his versionas to how he had obtained it. They were called upon to decide between the statement of the wife, supported by pertain corroborative evidence, on the one side, and on the other the statement of the husband, not supported by any evi-

denoe, making a charge of perjury against her. If the jury were satsfied that the respondent had not told the truth about the Marine Parade incident, then they were entitled to reject his evidence in every other respect, because he had admitted himself that he was not likely to forget an oeburrenoe of such a character; and they had it that a complaint was made a very few days after tlie alleged occurrence took place. Tlio letter signed “D, Black ” was no evidence whatever against tlie respondent, and they were entitled to reject it entirely in their deliberations. The bangle incident, the incident outside th© Criterion Hotel, the Marine Parade incident, the article found in his clothing, anti the admissions he was alleged to have made in reference to two occasions, were the matters they liad to consider. THE VERDICT. Tlie jury retired at 5.39 p.m., and returned to Court five minutes later, having found as follows in regard to the issue put to them:—Did the respondent in the years 1901, 1902, and 1903, commit adultery in tlie town of Napier and elsewhere with divers women whose names are unknown ?—Yes. Dr Findlay moved for judgment accordingly. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with costs on the higher scale, the decree to bp made absolute at tlie expiration of three months. The cross-petition by the respondent for the restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed, and the respondent in the other case was directed to pay the petitioner’s costs, up to the Court proceedings and including Court fees, on the higher scale. The question of the custody of the surviving child, as well as the question of alimony, were allowed to stand over for further order of tlie Court.