POPPENS v. POPPENS AND PRENDERGAST.

NZ Truth, Issue 156, 13 June 1908, Page 8

POPPENS v. POPPENS AND PRENDERGAST.

A NOTABLE DIVORCE SUIT.

Victorian Labor Leader Joined as Co-Re-spondent

Papa Poppens Rwrfmces ICo^Pfoofsi

CO-RESPONDENT DISCHARGED FROM THE SUIT.

Divorce Granted, But the Wife Gets It

'■ ITTrom "Trtr&V 1 McJbotutoft iCctreSpo*. deitfc)i T&e anxiously-expected Poppens diwscceSuit was commenced before Mr Justice Hodges and a jury of 12 m the FirstCivil Court on Monday. Many causes conroined to whet the public cunostfy 1 over this extraordinary case. In the first place, no less a person than- George Michael. Prendergast, member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, and leader of the State Labor Party, was joined as corespondent. The respondent, a very fine looking woman, and the co-respond-ent, occupied seats .at the barristers* itable, whilst the two Miss Poppens were seated m the body of the Court. The two latter are charming-looking girls, and • 'they deserve sympathy. On&of them was so distressed during the recital of some unpleasant details of her mothers early life that she had to leave the-conrt. The full name of the petitioner is Wil- . Frederick Gottieib Poppens, ex-, 'steward and ex-publican, of Station-^ street, Port Melbourne, and he soughti ithe dissolution of his marriage with vat-; horg Emilia Poppens, nee Jansen, on theGROUND OF HER ADULTERY. Uriih. George Michael Prendergast. He 4 tiaimed damages amounting to £5000 from the latter. Respondent filed a counter petition for a divorce on the grounds of her husband's adultery and cruelty. She denied- petitioner's allegations. Dr.. \Jones appeared for the petitioner ; Mr Maxwell (instructed by Messrs Pavey, Wilson, and Cohen) appealed for the respondent; and Mr L. S. Wooif (instructedby the same firm) appeared for the corespondent. "'■' ' Petitioner , stated tharfc he was married to respondent at Napier (N.Z-) by. the « Rev. C. E. Elliott of the Church of England on August 27, 1875. Three daughters were born of the marriage. In .188<5 they left New Zealand and came to Sydney,'and then on to Melbourne. Their Jiome at this time jvas a very bappy one. Petitioner got employment as a barman at Hosie's hotel. Their third child was, born while they were living at FitzroyRespondent assisted to keep the house-go-ing with laundry work. Petitioner gave particulars of his connection, with various hotels up to the time he went INTO THE MEAT MARKET HOTEL, [Victoria-street, Mr G. J), Carter and the Castlemaine Brewery assisting him. They, stayed m this hotel , for nine years. If : Was while m this hotel that he first began to have suspicions of his wile. He came home from the theatre one night With his two daughters, and saw co-res-pondent and his wife together m the sit-ting-room. The door was open. He said !to his wife, "What are you doing here ?" and she replied, "There was a broken glass and I Have been wiping it off the floor." Petitioner went into the room and found co-respondent lying drunk on the couch, and told him to go outside. He got him by the shoulders and put Mm out. Then he said to his wfie, "You are, carrying on a nice game .here." She replied, "Nothing of the kind, I cant help them coming m here." The room .was a public sitting room. His Honor: I do not see what yon mean. You have not ■told the=court anything that would suggest impropriety. If there was anything you bad better tell us what it is. You say *o, your • is ' a nice " GAME YOU ARE CARRYING ON^ (What game was she carrying on?. Petitioner : She bajd no right being inthere. She could have served the drinks and not stayed there. His Honor : Could anything improper occur with the door open-? xfou • come home and find this man lying an & sofa, {trunk, m, a room which is used, by^isittirs to the hotel, ami you find your wife picking up broken glass. Well, what next? Petitioner went on to say that the next thing o | ccv/rred one market morning. He was going upstairs, and had reached the landing, when he heard corespondent come m and stand by the bar window. He heard co-respondent say, i"Why dont, you get rid. of him!?" and the wife replied, "Row can IT"- He sang out from the top of the stairs, "If you don't get out. of this, quick and lively I iwill chase you out." • . His Honor : How do you know it was you they Were referring "to when Ik said, ''Why don't you get rid/of him" t It might have been another lover 1 ?— Oh, no, It .wasn't. His Honor: Weil, the jury will have to< understand wha£ they can of it. I am,) afraid they will not understand much/ How do you knpw he was not REFERRING TO A; S&.VAGE<DOG \ about the place— {l.:anghter)>— or to the;; boots ?— Every time I spoke about the co-respondent she always defended him. I went downstairs; and said to my wife, "I will make you sit up for it someday." She replied, "You can do what you' like," I said that ended it. I did not hear anything further for a few years.- --' His Honor : You keep dropping words suggestive that you have something whichi you are keeping buck. You had better not do that.' When did you next see or do anything ?— When we -were m the Builders' Arms two years ago,- but I have-*no witnesses, and I can make no statement iwithout supporting it by evidence. Mr Woolf : Petitioner had written a letter withdrawing the altegations*o! adultery m regard to the Builders' Arms Hotel. Petitioner went on to say that they* did no good m the Builders' Arms Hotel; and his wife used to say to him, "Either me or you will have to strike dut." He replied, '•'lf you want to get rid of. me, I will go, you can stop here. I will , go over to San Francisco." She said, . ''Very well," and he told her that he iwould have to get money,, She replied Itbat SHE COULD BORROW MONEY; on the piano. She borrowed '£30, afcd he left, telling her thg* ifl-.*.” •">» good start she could - liked. While he was a^ j ' out of the Bwlder&e* • {it to live at S'" ' . fXJ 0 **m* | | \ ■ ! ; . | i. ! I"

matters so. nnpleasant that" af : lassie^ .said. "Look here, I will go * away if 'you -give me £50.'' She said she -would take. me down to Mr Cohen, and he would, lend £59. He gave»Mr a bill WHICH HIS WIFE ENDORSED, and got the money. He said he would^pay ' it back. He got a -ticket the same day and went to Sydney, but when he got to Sydney he saw sometiiing m "Truth," and' would not go any further. He returned to Melbourne. < This concluded petitioner's story. Mr Maxwell .* Can you give no .farther -evidence of your wife's adultery ?<— None = whatever. There is one witness here. He used to let him m o! a Sunday morning,, ■and never saw Mm gping out. So that is all the evidence that you^ have that your wife was committingradultery with co-respondent for months .during . 1907 ?— One witness went to-Syd-, ney last Thursday night, and another wit-;. ness is employed at the Meat Market "Hotel. I had no means totaing her-faere. Up to -date, how much money have you 1 got out of your wife or ANYONE. CONNECTED WITH THIS ?- ; ;Only the £50. . That was before the proceedings were, laken at all ?— Yes. ' You say that after you returned from San Francisco your wife made rfc so uncomfortable for you that you had to-* leave. Did you make it at all-uncomfort-able for. your' wife?— No. Did you ever call her a before cus- < "tomers ?— Nothing of the kind. Did you ever say she was carrying on=f adulterous intercourse with co-respond-ent before customers ?— Yes. Did .you ever, m - the presence of her own daughters, call her a prostitute 7— No. * I' will ask you to consider that question. You always respected your daughters I—Yes,1 — Yes, and my wife for yes^rs. Leave your wife out of the question. Have .you any- reason to have any feeling for your daughters but respect ?^-They have " ' ' GIVEN ME THE COLD SHOULDER. If your wife and two daughters swear that m their presence you call her a prostitute, will you swear you did not ? — ■ I havte not. I donH remember it. Did you ever tell a constable that she was, a prostitute? — Nothing of the kind. Did you ever- accuse her of committing adultery with anyone except the co-res-pondents—No. Constable Noone will swear that you said to him, "This woman has always been unfaithful to me. She knocks about With Prendergast. He sleeps with her. She is a , and one of my daughters can prove it ?" — I did not say that. Did you think she was a prostitute ? —I don't think exactly she was that way. What do you mean by exactly ?— I dont think she was exactly what you would call a prostitute. Is co-respondent the only man you -ever suspected ?— The only man. Axe you quite sure 7— Yes. Go on. I know what -you want to say. What do I want to say? — You go on. ' What do you mean by saying you know what I want -to say ? I will trouble you for the answer ?— I decline to answer. His Honor : You must answer. Petitioner: He was going to bring another man into it, a fnend of mine. < Laughter.) I MADE SOME REMARKS ONE DAY about it, and more has been made out of it than Z expected. ~ You did mention another man's name m connection with your wife ?— Well,t no. You said remarks were made ?— Who made the remarks ?— A friend of mine. Did you write this letter on March 5: —"161 Station-street, Port Melbourne.— TMessrs Pavey^ Wilson and Cohen. Dear Sirs,— l wish to inform you that I withdraw unconditionally and unreservedly the divorce proceedings instituted hy me against my wife and all allegations against my wife and Mr Prendergast. I regret having taken such proceedings; and trust this will end the matter. I remain, yours, truly, William Poppens. Witness— C. A. King, St. John's wine cellar, 377 Collins-street ? M — I copied it from another letter, and two gentlemen persuaded me -to do this thing. ! 'Is this your letter to your wife, dated March 18 :— "Now. that I have withdrawn the proceedings, what are you intending to do ? I want a straight answer from yourself in.'youi? own handwriting. I think 'it is nearly time. that we had some settlement between us. lam not going, , to i fwrite a long letter. My time is short. I ■am . ■ , GOING ,TO LEAVE MELBOURNE shortly,' so I hope you. will not keep me; waiting so long for an answer V— Yes. What did you want— money •? — No, my rights. ' What rights ?— There were lots of things , m the house that belonged to me. Listen to this letter to Mr' Prendergast :— '^Dear Mr Prendergast. Dear Sir,— What would you give now to me as compensation after relieving you of all shame * I think I have had enough expense and trouble. I will not say too much. I will leave it to you.. Trusting that you will understand lam going to leave Melbourne as soon as I can, and awaiting your early reply, I am, yours truly, W. Poppens." You say you leave it to Mr Prendergast himself. Leave what 1 ? How much Jo pay 1 ?— /TO PAY MY EXPENSES.•You .wanted money ?— My expenses, yes.; ? Did you ever get anything ■?— No. . Did you ever get anything from your wife ?— No. On March 23 you wrote to your wife :— "It would have been better for you to have answered my letter straight away to save more trouble and talk. If you sent me a cheque for £100, I would not trouble you any more, or your lover either. You can do as you like, and I will do the same. I will give any writing you like. It is for yours and the girls' sake I do this, so please yourself. Soon answer, not later than Wednesday, to the old address.— W. Poppens." So you were prepared to take £100 ?— Yes. What were you to give m exchange for Ufche £100 ?— She was holding my things. were you going to do if you got Sr o t trouble them any more. '^VVtrV letter, dated March 25. *'* "V you »have taken the case * ft *%Mfljriott Wa-tson with and rf-^y **fyp YOU

for farther settlement I should advise you "to write to me only," you were not ■ referring to the money you expected toreceive ?— No* . Who were you expecting ltd rectt«*(money. from ? — My wife. This was not a settlement with! |5? prendergast or Mr Cohen ?— No< , Did you think you were likely to get fmore of the £100 if it came direct toyou than if it filtered through. Marriott Watson ?— No. . You expected that your wife was going 1 to dub up £100 ?— Yes. Was not that the reason you took -the 'thing out of Marriott Watson's hands ?r— !IJo. , ■ Then why did you write and say, ' 'Don't Jsendit to Marriott Watson ; send it to 'ime ?"— I wanted to do so without signring any further documents. You got no reply) to all these letters ? ,~No. Is that' the reason why you again on with the divorce proceedings acgMut your wife? Would you have gone *>n if you got the £100?£--¥es t just the jsame.' | jDo you. jnean that"?'— l mean -it so far— r »Do you mean to say that if you got ia-ireply to that letter of the 23rd and fgot a cheque for £100 ydu would have, rgone on with the proceedings - I ?— i DID/ NOT GET, A CHEQUE, and I can't say, as n got no answer.(Laughter.^ Supposing you got a cheque, would you .have gone on? — Yes, so far as I know now. ' Well, what were you offering to do for your wife for the £100 ?— The things she holds of mine are worth more than £100. Listen, to this :— "if you send a cheque for £100 I will not trouble you no more, nor your lover either." Did you mean •to convey that if she dubbed down £100 you would not go on ? — Yes, I mean that. Do you mean that you would extort £100 from your wife and yet go-on with the divorce proceedings against her ?— I did not catch what you v said properly. You now say that if you got the £100 asked for she would have heard no more_ of the divorce, proceedings •?— That is •right. In another letter, dated March 26, to afriend of yours, Mr John Dunn, you talk about "a helping hand." Did you expect, to get money from him ? — No. Dunn per- « suaded me to withdraw, and he would put me into an hotel.. Did you expect to get into the hotcras well as get the £100 ?— No. Erttier ,the ifilOu or the- hotel would do. Did your wife ever have ; to take steps to get an injunction to KEEP YOU OFF THE PREMISES ? —Yes. Were you not told when you came bacK that Mrs' Poppens was put m the Central Club Hotel on condition that you had nothing to do with it I ?— Yes, and I wanted to know the reason. Are you aware that we had to take out a summons m order to get from you particulars of your allegations against your wife ?— So I believe. Was that your fault or your solicitor's ? — Not mine. Had you given your solicitor all the particulars we afterwards got ?— Yes. The respondent is paying the jury fees you should have paid ? — Yes. Do you remember seeing Mr Cohen on March 25 and saying, "I want to withdraw proceedings. I .have been very much misled by my solicitors I"— We had some conversation about thai. DM you say, "I have been "wry mu<ai misled. Levy told me a WHOLE LOT OF LIES about being able to make some money if I kept on with the case ?"— Yes. Is that the Levy who was present m Court this morning, and who cleared out when he thought his Honor wanted to ask him a few questions ? — Yes. Did you say, "I find he is only trying to make money himself ?"— Yes. \ I suppose you came to tnat conclusion pretty early* m the case ?— Yes. Was that the reason why you wanted the £100 , sent direct to you and not through , Marriott Watson ?— Yes. I thought so. You told us that what led you to change your purpose about going away was the appearance of an article m "Truth" ?— Yes. Who gave the explanation to "Truth." Was it you ?— Yes, but I was not aware of It. I was talking to a reporter and I was drawn into it. ■ May I take it that you gave him some •of it and he made up the rest ?— Yes. When you saw the explanation • m '•Truth," part of which you supplied yourself, you thought you would come back?— Yes. You get £50, and you next demand £100 ?— Yes. Difl you swear this m your affidavit?— "The first time I became suspicious was ' m consequence of information received by me from friends about November i, 1907,";? —That is true. You know WHAT YOU ARE SWEARING ■?. -Yes. You also told us that you had been living happily with your wife up to the timo you went . to San Francisco ? — That is not altogether true. For the past -13 years we had been quarrelling. Of-course that^was your wife's fault?— Yes. I may have been to blame m some cases.' Do you attribute this quarrelling to any suspicion of your wife's fidelity? — No. In your affidavit you state that your wife was m the family way to another man when you first met her .?» Is that true ?— Yes. Do you say that because of anything you saw or of what was told you ?— No. Did she inform you of the fact herself ? —Yes. Before you . offered, to marry her ?— Yes. Do you swear that before YOU OFFERED TO MARRY her. your wife told you she was m the family way to another man? — Yes. If she swears there is not a word of truth m. it T— The people on the ship know there is. ' Was any witness present when she told you ?— Anyone could see it. . Did you have intercourse with her on board the ship ?— Yes. That was some considerable time before the marriage, and you say your wife was obviously m the family 'waj ? — Any-i one could see it. What was her age ?— Fifteen and a half years. " She was an assisted immigrant. I am told?— Yes.; You were considerably older than she was .? — Four years older. You were a steward on board the ship ? -Yes. iYou would have known it even if she bad not told you ?— Yes. You married her after you landed ?— Yes. Out of pity, I suppose ?— No, there was no pity about it. If she says . Dhat you seduced her on board ship, and that you had a child-pre-maturely born not long after the marriage, will that be true ? — No. I had only known her four mouths before marriage. The child was born about two months after marriage ? — Yes. It did not live. Did the doctors say it was a 6 months' child I— No, it WAS A FULLY-GROWN CHILD. What did you bring all this up m the affidavit for ?— I told everything I knew. Did you think it had anything to do with the case ? — I didn't know .whether it bad or not. In Christchurch, did you begin to complain that your wjfe was not making herself as attractive to you as other women? -No. . Did you tell her that you had got another woman m the family way? — No. Did a Mrs Hodge come out m the same boat on a previous voyage when you i. were steward ?— Yes. ==*^pid you tell your . wife that she was a ajtheart of your* ?— Yes.

D"M ; your- wif»> complain that .you wet© cgoing to Mrs Hodge's <?— Yes. When she made the complain* did you knock her down ? — No\> , Did she have a. miscarriage, shorty/ vet* •ter ?— Yes, I believe sh. did^ Did Mrs Poppens have to teavp you shortly after and take a> situation as a .barmaid at Lyttelton-i?— No. Did the doctor tell you abont this !fime that unless you 'gave your wife a rest she would never have a child at all, and that you were practically prostituting your wife? — No. Did you leave New Zealand leaving your -creditors unpaid, and WERE YOU ARRESTED HERB and taken back ?— Yes, and my bankruptcy was' allowed, and I paid 20s m, the ±>I Yes, after you were arrested do you remember being at the Albion Hotel m Wellington ?— Yes, one child was bora thare. fhortly after the birth of that child Mrs Poppens charge you with carrying on with a barmaid ?— No. Did you bring a barmaid into her. room shortly after her confinement, and were you, both turned out by the nurse ?— No. Dild you give the barmaid Mrs Poppens's jewellery to wear ?— No. Did Mrs Poppens insist on you getting rid ol that barmaid ?— Not ttot I know Ofv One one occasion did she throw a vate at tiie two of you ?— No. Did you have any row m the presence of anyone about that barmaid ?— No. I may have had words with a' barmaid about not doing her work or thieving the till or something. Did she insist on a certain widow leaving the Meat Market Hotel ?— Not on my account. A widow did come to the' hotel and stayed for a month. }. She came over with you m the sameboat ?— Yes. I knew her as a baby. Did your wife insist on turning her out of the place ?— Yes, she was jealous. Without any cause whatever.?— Yes. Mr Woolf : When you were m the Meat Market Hotel, did Mr Prendergast sco 1 you and your wife about a sanitary par tent she wanted to get rid of ?— Yes. | He spent a good deal of time trying to her and you over the matter ? — Not me. It had nothing to do with me. Did you ever tell anyone that you had :put him m the horse trough ? l — Yes. Is that a lie?— No. Why did you not tell us that m your examination-in-chief to-day. Do you still say you put him m the horse trough ?— Yes. A powerful man like Prendergast ?■— He •isn't so very powerful. -Are you not telling a deliberate lie?— No. Did you mention it to anyone till you told the representative of "Truth" ?— Yes, I told it to several. Give us the name of one person ?— A South Melbourne man was standing alongside me when I did it. You never told your wife or you daughters ?— No. You were interviewed by a representative of "Truth" ?— Several times. And you gave a statement to him ?— Yes. • On that occasion did you tell him you had thrown Prendergast into the water trough ?-Yes. ■ That is the first anyone knew of it ?— No. You do not mention the name of a single other person who knew it. Why did you. not tell your wife ?— I DID NOT THINK OF IT. Did you ever put anyone else m a horse trough ?— Yes. Give the name of anyone else? — I don't know the name. Can you fix the year ? — Yes, when we were at the Central Club. Who was the^man you put m ?— lt was not a man. If was a woman. (Loud laughter.) You put a woman m the trough ? Why ?— I wanted to . get rid of her. (Laughter.) . m _ .. . That is your action of getting rid of | a customer ? — She was not a customer. Well, you have only put two m the trough this unfortunate woman and poor Prendergast. Did r YOU LEAVE HIM DROWNING ? (Laughter.)— l left him. You did not care whether he drowned or not. That is the way you treat a man who is trying to be / a friend and take up your sanitary patent I—l1 — I did not want his friendship. Was not Mr Carter, who travels for a, ! cigar firm, m the hotel the whole of the evening when you say you saw co-respon-dent lying on the couch drunk ? — He might have been at the hotel, but he was not there at the time this happened. Did you invent that story of the horse trough for the purpose of injuring Mr Prendergast with his constituents 7— No, I did not. Did you ever say to your wife m the presence of her daughters that you would never be satisfied till you had dragged them all into the gutter ?— No, I did not, but I told them they would turn me out of the house and home yet. His Honor : Why did you not mention . that incident of the horse trough m your examination-in-chief ?— I was ftot asked it. I asked you again and again to mention all incidents. It seemed such an extraordinary thing that you 'gave no evidence of impropriety, . Are you m the habit of putting people m horse troughs? No. Only him and that other woman. These were the only two persons you put into a trough. 1 should have thought it would have made an impression on you ? — No. His Honor (grimly) : Were you ever put m a horse trough yourself ? (Laughters—No. Mr Woolf :■ You know you had that INCIDENT PUT IN "TRUTH?" His Honor : Oh. it was m "Truth." was it 7, Mr Woolf : If Mr Prendergast says that od that occasion you asked him to have a drink, and that the two of you had a drink, that will not be true ? (Laughter.) —No. His Honor (to petitioner) i Have you any witnesses 1 Petitioner took a glance round and then pointed to a young man sitting m court. The young man (loudly) : As I hay* not been subpoenaed I refuse to give evidence. His Honor '■ As you are here m court you will have to walk into the box. A' subpoena is necessary to get you into court, but once you are m court a subi poena does not matter. The discomfited young man walked into the witness-box and said his name was Douglas Arthur Hart, and that he was formerly employed m the Central Club Hotel by Mrs Poppens. Petitioner : Did you on Sunday morning do anything ?— I Xised to let Mr Prendergast m every Sunday morninK about eleven o'clock. (Laughter.) What happened after you let him m ? — I don't know.— (Laughter.) His Honor : When was this ?— While I was m Mrs Poppens's employ. I was there about four er five months. I left on December 11 of last year. Mr Maxwell : Don't you know Mr Prendergast was m the habit tof calling regularly m connection with the business ?— 1 know he called regularly every Sunday. (Laughter.) ' Did you see him do anything m connection with the books or the takings ? (Loudly) I say nothing at all. (Laughter.) His Honor : Did you let him out ?— Nov Do you know when he went out?— No, PETITIONER'S CASE CLOSED. Mr Woolf asked his Honor to say that there was no evidence against th# cotrespondent. His Honor : I can find no evidencs against the co-respondent. I mast dismiss the petition against him, with

Mr Harwell asked that the petition against the respondent be dismissed. His Honour : I cannot do that s I most hear .the case. Mr Maxwell then. • opened the respon-. dent's caseby putting Elizabeth O'Meara,v r a dolorous-looking woman of middle age,, ia the box. She said that she lived at 80 Moor-street, Pitzroy. She knew the petitioner, having first met hint about four years ago, when he was m. th& Builders' Arms Hotel. She used ,to go to the hotel/ Mr Maxwell : What took you to the hotel ?— -A' message. (Laughter.) For drink ?— Yes. At that time- I' rented a room m 93 George-street. You were not leading a good life at. that time ?— No. I used the room tot' immoral purposes.- I had frequent con-' versations with the petitioner when •!' •went to the hotel. He knew tihe kind of life T was leading. Will you tell his Honor how it was hecame to go to your place ?— He suggested that he should go once when I came into the hotel. I said he could. (Laughter.) Shortly after he came to*myroom, and impropriety took place. Petitioner : I have never seen -von . : ln % my life before. You know very well I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOU /, or been near you, not even m ;the hotel?" - — Yes you have. v What did I pay you?— l can't tell you now. His Honor:; Whom did .'you first Itell about petitioner having intercourse with you ?— My solicitor. (Laughter.) Your solicitor ! Who is he ? What is his name ?— Mr Cohen. (Laughter.) Is he your solicitor ? — No.What brought him to Jour office-^ (laughter) — or you to his office, I should say ?— No answer." . Had you ever, told anyone up to that time that petitioner was visiting you ?— No. Will you tell me how you came to Mr Cohen's office if you had not tdld anybody ■?— No answer. . I am waiting for your answer (sternly) ?— No answer. Did you go to Mr Cohen's office voluntarily or were you taken there I~i was -taken there by a friend. What is your friend's name and residence ?^— No answer. . Had you told your friend that you had relations with Mr Poppens ?— No. Then how came that friend to ask you to Mr Cohen's plase ? I want to hear his name. At the request of his Honor he was called,, and promptly stood forth. He was then TOLD TO LEAVE THE COURT | while the witness was hems examined. I His Honor (to the witness) : Why did he take you, and why did you go ? — He asked me to go on a little business he had concerning me. Did you ask him what it was ? — Yes. He told me it was concerning Mr Poppens 's case. That will do. : Eva McG-ee. a married woman, stated that m 1904 she was living next door to the last witness.--' On one occasion she saw petitioner standing at the porch m front of the last witness's place. He was talking to someone inside. She mentioned the incident to Mrs Pom>ens because she saw by the papers that her husband was going for a divorce. In consequence, Mr Walsh called on her. Petitioner : say you knew me.- I don't remember ever seeing you. John Walsh, private detective, stated that he had been doing some work m connection with the case of Messrs Pavey, Wilson and Cohen. Mr Cohen spoke to him, and afterwards he saw the witness O'Meara. Constable Noone stated that on Saturday. November 9. he received a message to go to the Central Club Hotel. Mrs Poppens said petitioner was trying to run the business. He replied, "She is trying to get rid of me. She has been knocking about with Prendergast for the last nine years. He. is here nearly every nicht. MY DAUGHTERS CAN PROVE IT." ■ Mrs Poppens said, "You are a liar," and cave him a shove. Petitioner then said, "You have been a for the last nine years. I put him m the water trough, and I am sorry I did not drown him." Mrs Poppens said she did not want to give him in ' charge, but she wanted him removed from the premises. Ultimately petitioner went outside. He told witness that he had picked up with his wife as a girl of fifteen, and had married her, and that Prendergast had made trouble between them. Valborg Emilia Poppens, the respondent, was the next witness. Mr Maxwell : You have heard what petitioner said about your voyage out here. Is there a word of truth m his statement about your being m a certain condition when he proposed^ to you ? — Nonq whatever. He proposed to you on hoard ship ?— Yes. You say that it is not true that you were pregnant when you came on board? —There is not a word of truth m it. Is^ it true, as he says, that you lived happily together most of the time after • marriage ?— No, it is not. [ Do you remember the incident of His go.ing to see his sweetheart, Mrs Podge ? —Yes, I saw|him coming from her house one night. I followed him and told him I would/ tell Mr Hodge. He then turned on me. knocked me down. and- ; kicked me. I was pregnant at the time, and shor+l--afterwards 7 had a mishap. Witness went on TO RELATE SPECIFIC INSTANCES of petitioner's cruelty to her whilst they were Hying: m various places In New Zealand. While they were m the Albion Hotel, Wellington, he brought a barmaid up to her bedroom four days after her child was born. The barmaid was wearing witness's jewellery, which she had locked up m the safe before she became ill. Her husband had the keys of the safe. The nurse ordered her husband and the barmaid out of the room. Shortly after this, witness found her husband and the barmaid lying on a sofa together. She threw a vase at them. In consequence her husband attacked her that night. Tie tore her dress off her, and turned her out in,to the street. After they came to Melbourne, he continued to treat her badly/

When he came over from Sydney, and while she i was m the Builders' Arms Ho:tel, Pitzroy, he said the house was no less than a brothel, and he was going to alter the trade. Two or. three nights after this he kicked her on the hips, and otherwise assaulted her. He was always kicking up rows with her, and fn the presence of her daughters and customers he called her a prostitute. Ho used to IreQUent the races and borrow money her. On one occasion he asked her for a pound, and she told him she could not let him have it, as trade was not too good. He was very cross all that day and night, and followed it up by assaulting her. 'A favorite method of hurting her was to poke his fingers over her eyes. In consequence ol his behaviou HER CREDIT WAS STOPPED, and she had to pay cash for everything. Mr Maxwell : Was there ever a shadow of foundation for anything he said against your fidelity ?— No. When he came home m 1907' he began making charges, and said he would shoot me and Prendergast and himself. Petitioner said he had no desire |to his wife. Rosalind Wilhelmina Poppens, daughter Tof the parties, corroborated her mother's tevidence as to her father's cruelty. She-i heard her father say he would hang for her mother yet. He frequently, m front of customers, ordered her, oat of the bar. Witness heard him call her mother a prostitute. She was always m fear of what .her father might do to her mother.* Apart from his tivatment of her mother, he always treated witness well. Valborg Emilia Poppens, another daugh- ■ ter. gave similar evidence. She was In such fear for her mother that before going to rest she used to go up to her father's room and hide his razors and scissors. Constable McGowan stated that m November (last he was called to the Central Club Hotel. He heard petitioner say to his wife, "She is carrying on with a man m this house." Witness remarked, "I don't think so. No one can say anythine against the conduct of the hotel." Petitioner replied, "No, she is too cunning." He then made use of SEVERAL INSULTING REMARKS. Miss Foppens was standing at the door at the time. Petitioner was very excited, and under the influence of drink. Richard George Childs, tailor, living two doors from the Central Club Hotel, deposed that late at night m November last, Mrs Poppens complained to him of her husband's treatment. He heard petitioner say, "You know .she has been carrying on with Prendergast for years. You remember when I was»at. the Meat Market Hotel. I caught him and Mrs Poppens m the sitting room. I caught Prendergast and put him m the watertrough." Witness replied, "You never | did such a thing m your life. You ! could never put Prendergast m a water ' trough." Later on the same night, wit- | ness was again called to the hotel. Pe- \ tdtioner was very excited. Witness ask-. ! him to have a drink, and he replied, "I have had the last drink. Somebody will suffer to-night." Witness then advised that a constable should be sent for. : Montague Cohen, solicitor, denied the ) statements of petitioner that he had lent him £50. Petitioner's wife found the money, though it was much against | witness's advice. This concluded the respondent's case. . Petitioner was. recalled. He denied' that he had ever committed adultery j with the woman O'Meara, He had never seen the woman m his life. Mr Maxwell made a brief address to the jury, but petitioner said he had nothing to say. His Honor, in* summing, up, laid particular stress on the nature of the evidence called to substantiate the allega-. tion of ' ADULTERY AGAINST PETITIONER. It was, he said, unusual, though it was not , unprecedented, that woman of the class of O'Meara should voluntarily come Into the witness-box, and act the traitor to the men who had visited them, and openly proclaim their own shame m the matter. After the Jufy had been m retirement for some time, they returned to the court and asked if a majority verdict would be accepted. His Honor said hscould not accept such a verdict at that stage. At the expiry of three hours, however, his Honor sent for the jury again, and explained to them that the law was that three hours must elapse before a majority verdict could be accepted. He was now prepared to accept their verdict. The foreman stated that three-fourths of the jury, nine out of twelve, were of opinion that the charge of adultery against the petitioner was proved, and the jury was unanimously of opinion that the charge of cruelty was proved. His Honor : I. will accept that. I "dismiss the petition of the petitioner with costs, and I grant a decreee nisi to the respondent on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. •'