Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

DOUBLY-DESIRED DIVORCE DENIED

FURNESS'S FOLLY WITH A FRIEND.

CURIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING CO-RE. COOKE.

Generous Jury's Verdict : An All-round Whitewashing

The marital relations of Edmund Earl Furaess and Blanche Louisa Purness were laid bare before' his Honor Mr, Justice Hosking, m Wellington Supreme Court, when Edmund presented a petition for. the clipping of the marriage knot on account of the alleged adultery of his wife with one Leonard Cooke. The occasion Was one of unusual interest* it being the first appearance, m a leading case before a jury, of the ; newly appointed judge. At the rising of the court, the comments on the manner m which hla Honor departed himself were alike favorable from bar, Jury, press and public. He possesses the "suaviter m modo, fortiter In re" method to perfection, and has a happy knack of indicating to. the "man of costs" that he is overstepping the bounds of legitimate interrogation. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for petitioner/Mr. C. Mf. Neilson for the wife, and Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh for the corespondent, Leonard CoOke* Challenges to jurymen were frequent on both sides. The jury chosen, it didn't take long to fix on a foreman, aS the reputation of bowler' Churchward had evidently preceded him. Weil- on m the afternoon; some amusei merit was caused by Lawyer Neilsen discovering that "one of the witnesses for petitioner was a brother of one of the jurymen. In a loud aside he accused Lawyer O'Leary of not ''playing the game" m omitting to lnfqrm him of the fact. O'Lfeary pleaded entire innocence of any knowledge of the relationship, and, as it was too late to do aiiything, the case proceeded. 'JJhis was Counsel O'Leary's flrit big | cafle lit the Supreme Cdurt, • and he fully* Jußtifted the favorable, estimate formed of him at the outset of his I cafe^r. iiis opening address to the jury was clear, well-artahged and HAD A PLtJASINa FREEDOM fronvall eitrarieoUS mutter. He said that Furness was ah employee of the V/etllngton Harbor Bbtti-a. He and his wife- .had first met the CO- respondent, who yvaa a bank clerk, at the Waverley tt-ivato Hotel, "Wellington. He became very friendly with petitioner and his Wife arid used to frequent their rod* and enjoy a game ot cards. Qn Ati&tist 1, 1912, petitioner removed frem tttd Waverley to the BHstdi, prior to the present management conducting the Bristol. Cooko | alsd removed thero. Petitioner's room was tto. 29, dodkfe's No. 8 on another floor. On September 1 Cooko sfilfted his quarters to a room on the same flat as that occupied by Furness and his wife. During the months of September, October, November and December, 1913, co-respondent was frequently In petitioner's ; room, sometimes when the latter was there, sometimes when he was riot. In January, 1913, Furnetis came to the conclusion that Gooko was TOO INTIMATE "WITH HIS WIFE and apoke to her on the subject. She replied, "If Cooko goes, I go, too." The following month he again complained and received the same reply. In March, Codke showed Furness a dressing gown which he said he was g6lng to present to Mrri. Furness. Petitioner objected, said that he would buy It, and added, "You're becoming tob Intimate with my wife. It's time you left" Just previous to Easter of last year the co-respondent went over to Blenheim, un Easter Saturday Mrs. Furness suggested going over to Picton on the Monday, but petitioner objected. On Monday montlng When he woke up, He found his wife drdssing. She insisted on going* went, and came back with Cooke. Oil tho Tuesday night, when he arrived home, he found Cooke m his room, stretched across the end of. the bed and his wife tying down, half undressed. The following Friday this again happened, and this time his wife was Wearing the dress-ing-gown previously Bhown him by Cobke. Next morning petitioner tackled tils wife on the subject, when she uAld; "You'll come home somo day and fifrd tnd not here." That ended It. Petitioner afterwards saw her at her m6lher's houdo, and told her that he was Willing to keep her, IF 3HE GAVE UP COOKE. She refused. So mat-torn drifted till August, when the co-respondent left for Western Australia. She then is- i sued proceedings for separation and maintenance. Petitioner instituted more searching inquiries and found that Hlnoo Cook had loft tho Bristol Hotel, Mrs. Furness and he were seen arm In arm 1 at Lyall Bay; that, between February 19 ahd March 1, when petitioner had to leave for work at 0 o'clock m tho morning, tho housemaid At tho Bristol saw .Cooke coming out of Mrs. Furnena'a room nt 7 o'clock In bIH pyjamas; that, on tho trip to Plctori, although passengers wore supposed to keep to the upper dock, Mrs. FurneflH arid Cooko spout most of tho time In the saloon; that, on tho day Cuoko left for Western Australia, respondent wan at the wharf from A till T o'clock seeing him oft. Counsel explained further that the respondent had iHoucd n counter-peti-tion alleging habitual drunkenness, cruelty, insufficiency of maintenance, comlonemont of and conducetnent to adultery. Edmund Enrl Furnewi nnhl he was a toll«-clrrk In tho Wellington Harbor Bonrd, arid that ho had married the respondent urKrfnrch 20, 1900. ]-| 0 corroborated £Jj story nu» outlined by hin counsel, VJlh additional particular*. To plonuo hin wltfo he allowed h<T to ro to tho plottireitt with Cooko. Wltnww dltl not j?o to m»ch ontcrtnlnincntf* a* tho flicker ufTocted hla c >•«•«. Toward* the end of January. 1512, ufU«r removal lo the Hrlalnl, wllm-jw imld to hi* wife. "Do you think Cooko can keep out of our room and Mill bo H«totl friend* ?" She rci'|>llc*«l, "Speuk to Cooke." WUuowt then uald. "I am spcnkinß to you." Tho retort came, "IF COOKK GOK3, I CIO. TOO." 110 apoko to Caokc about glvlnß the prewnt of a drotminK-gawn to hln wife and fftl<l that it would tend to trouble later on. When he came homo and found hlit wife In bcil with Cooko reclining iicrojtn tho r>nd of n. »<. remonstrated with her, but *he rcpUtd m a. ttio«c offhand manner, "(in! you riro not wanted." WltnrsK n»|i||«Ml, "You ncc<l not worry, I am not rolok to annoy you." The next mornlnK hl« wife woke up nllll In an tnriliß>r<M)i mood. WltnfHH pot up and drcnufcd. Wlillc bin wlfo «n« drawing at Ihe table Cooko walked lo and gat on the bed.

The wife talked to Cooke and threw off at petitioner. She said, "You will come horiie some day and find the room empty. I will clear out." Witness replied, "If, you are not satisfied, the best thing you can do is to dear out." After breakfast that morning, she went At 41 o'clock that night (continued w|tness)' he saw co-respondent, who admitted having seen his wife, who was fit Lyall Bay with her sister. He said to Cooke, "I don't know whether you're A FOOL OR A BALLY ROTTER." He told him he was standing between man and wife. He replied that they had been good- friends, and that h^ would do anything he could, if necessary arrange a home for her. The next day, Sunday, March 30. he again protested to Cooke'. He replied. "I intend to please myself. I am big enoUgh and able enough to look after myself." Petitioner said, "Very well, Cooke, the trouble will be on your own head." He made an offer to her to live with him on her own condition; but that the friendship with Cooke must cease. To this she replied* "I will not drop my friendship with Coofte. I Uilrik a lot of him and 1 think nothing of you." To the various charges made m the counter-petition, as already detailed m counsel's opening address, witness gave a categorical denial. He strenuously denied throwing a cup of .coffeo Over his wife. He had never thrown boots, books and other uncohsidered trifles at her. Counsel O'Leary (sotto voce) : You only threw your wages. In fegard to the bad language charge witness did remember saying, on the morning she left the Hotel Bristol. "You are no b good to me, going on m this manner. Get to hell out of it." As to habitual drunkenness and the getting drUnk at least once a week,' witness denied it. Counsel: Were you ever "right out"? Hlh Honor; We have had several definitions of drunkenness. Is this a new one? In that case it will be well to have it out. (Addressing witness) Have you ever been "right out?" j (General laughter.) ! Witness: I have been under tho Influence three times during my married life. I have never stayed away from work and have never been reprlmahdi cd by my bosses. Lawyer Nlelson subjected the witness to a long ahd Wearisome crossexamination, marked by a monotony of reiterated questions* which oft two or three occasions, brought protests from his Honor with tho suggestive tag, "Let us get on." Witness eald that he had never physically chastised his wife. After his marriage ho was removed to one of the bonded stores on the wharf. He

did not give way to drink while there. In Plrle-street there wa» generally some liquor on the sideboard. He would swear positively that he had j never KEPT LIQUOR IN AN OVEN. Counsel O'Leary protested at the line of questioning adopted. Hlb Honor: He muy bo going to find out something from it. That ihu liquor was boiled, perhaps. Witness, continuing, said that his wife never told him In Plrit»-9treel that she had Keen Dr. Mcl>ca.n and that an operation had heen advised. Counsel NellHon: Did you ever go homo drunk at Ha-tal-tal? Witness: Do you mean "right out?" Counsel: No, I mean "under thd Influence." Witness: Only on one occasion that I remember. Life at the Waverley Private Hotel In Marlon-street then came under revlow. In regard to money matters Witness wild that his wife had never been kept short. Ho had never said. "I pay her damned hoard, and that is enough?" Ho would swear positively that he had never locked the door when his wife hnd gone for her bath and that friend Cooko had come along and aaked him to open It. After hearing a slab of Cooko'B evidence taken cm commission read, stating that the locked door Incident hod happened, witness s«ld, "I Hwwir that It was not Brt." Visits to picture palaces led to a long hiring of ro* (termed <ju»vUJon.s from l-iwyer N'cllson. when his Honor Interrupted. "I think iho witness has answered very fairly. Mr. K«Unon."Wltnoss n«vor knew that Mrs. Tregunning's daughter and h!s wlfi« had hnd a row: but he did know that thr young !««">' had locked respondent and co-reMjM»nd««nt In the bedroom, wht>n< they remained for iwo hours. Witness was not In the joke. When ho and hlf« wife left tho Wavorloy Hoiol to go t«» tho Bristol, hp snld It would be hi-ttcr if Cookit did not «<■> wHh them. C!ookc hud ncvpr hfliwd him to his room m a drunken condition; but ho had assisted him when «»<• of UU\ eplU»i»ile <lt* come on. Couneol: Did" you ever go to bf-d with a bottle of whisky and drink it nent7—-No: I enn't drink whisky ncau Continuing, witness said that l«*, hl» wife nnd Cookc bad never lain on the

bod together discussing things m general. He hod never walked round the Post Ofllce for half-an-hour at night arid met a woman named Allen there and gone up the Kelburne tram with her. lie had never told his wife that 3«aid. woman had been turned but of the Columbia Hotel and that if any one filled her with liquor, he could get anything. Asked if Cooke Had paid his and hiß wife's bill when they were leaving the Waverley, witness replied that ho did not. Counsel: Now* Furnoss, you are on your oath. Did Cooke hot meet your liabilities when you left the Waverley? —No. . . ' , „■■ . / Subseciuentiy, Lawyer Hindmarsh , called Francis PlcpUN.&W,. Bank led r . ger- keeper, who produced two cheques, 'one for £4 and the other for £5 ss, both payable to Mrs. Trcgonning, dated August i, and signed- Leonard Cooke. Furness then admitted the payment, but said that he had repaid the sum sJnce. In the absence of Cooke, the latter statement wa3 uneori roborated. I Counsel, picking up Cooke's evidence: This is the way Cooke puts it — "I was Inside the room waiting for them to come to breakfast. Furness said tt hl3 wife, 'GET TO B HELL OUT OF THIS. You are no b good to me.' Furness then turned round and said. 'I want you to wltneso, Cooke, v^hat I said to hoi-.' I had heard him uao language like that before. While we were at the breakfast table, Mrs, Furncssj said that 3ho was going to her ststor's at Lyall Buy." Witness further said that he nnd Cooke had jointly purchased a bracelet watch for his wife, and had given it to her for a Christmas present, while he and his wife had presented Cooke wit!) a white silk tennis shirt. Early In 1013, Cooke had presented witness with a ring. The ring, was returned about a fortnight ago. Counsel: Mere m Cooke's evidence on the point, "What L call bad language is petitioner saying to his wife, 'Go to | b !' At tho breakfast table, before | all present, he culled her 'A b liar!' " Witness: That Is Incorrect. Counsel: Do you know a young lady called Nellie Roxburgh.— Yea. Nellie and .1 were very good friends, but we never had a HARK OLD ROMP ON THR BED, Nellie never walked Into my room with morning tea when I was standing on tho floor naked. Cross-examined by Lawyor Hindmarsh, witness said that Cooke had tho privilege of gcttlhg clothes from tho warehouse ut wholesale prices, and witness took advantage of that privilege. Counsel ("sotto voco"): Perhaps tho wholesale man had an overdraft. In regard to tho <lre:i.ilng gown, Cooke bought it wholesale, and witness offered to buy it outright or to pay half. Counsel: All this waving of a dressing gown, 1 suppose, la because it belonj;H to ex bedroom. Clara Trogonnlng. late proprietress of tho Waverley Hotel, then slipped Into Ihe box. She was neatly dressed m a light, stylishly-made, tailored costume, crowned with a very chic black Imt. Khc proved :i most capable witness, equal to the exigencies of keen cross-examination, and was more than is. match for Lawyer Nellson. Kho know all the parties very well. Cooke had boon at the Wuverley for about three yours. Mrs. Fumes* nmi sho were very friendly, and went out very much together. Respondent was always very comfortably dress <ul. and witness hail never hoard any hint a« to shortness of money. She. always looked upon Furness as an Ideal hunband. l( he had any fault, it wits thnt he wn» too etisy-Kolnjc. Witness had never noon the petitioner under ihe Influence of lluunr. .She had never hoard any quarrelling, nor the throwmc of hoots mnd other trltles. Witness was compellet! to jtlve Mrs, Furness notka to leave. Counsel O'Leury: Why vras It that you (rnv<« notice ?™-t<ec«.uae of her fit. mlllartty with Mr. Cooke. Cooke «■«» alwnys In Mm. Furnesa'a bedroom, tvoplc were, talking tilx)ut It. Hero th«> three lawyer* simultaneously jumped to their feet And loudly protetiietl with a yell.

His Honor (with a smile) : There are threo of them at you, Mrs. Tregonning. Don't worry. Counsel O'Loary: Was there any particular incident that caused the notice ' to quit? — Mrs. Furness's general conductLawyer Neilson then took a hand, but met his match. Counsel: You put it RATHER PLUMP AND PLAIN to Furncss? — I did not like Mrs. Furness's conduct with Cooke, and I told her husband. Up to that time I had always found Cooke a thoroughly respectable, manly young fellow. , Counsel: You would be quite pre- I pared to believe Cooke on oath? — I do ; not know that I woul-J nor/; I never j heard any quarrelling between Mr. and Mrs. Fumess — only a little "snapping," chiefly on the part of Mrs. Furness. Witness, continuing, said that she believed that Mrs. Furness made most j of her own clothes — m fact, she liked j making them. Respondent did not j complain about being locked m the room with Cooko. Ellen Roxburgh, housemaid, previously at the Bristol, deposed that she ' knew all the parties concerned m the j case. She frequently saw Cooko m ! Furness'B room at 7.30 m tho morning, ' at lunch, and m the evenings. She j had seen him In the early morning, \ both m his pyjamas and In his ordln- : ary clothes. Had seen Cooke coming j out on these mornings between 7.30 and j 8. On two occasions she had seen him J half open tho door, and look up and down the passage to see tnat no one was about. In regard to U-e romping incident, witness HfUd, "Mrs. Furnos3 suggested ] that 1 could not put Mr. Furncss on the j bed. 1 said I could, and I did it." ! To Lawyer Neilson. witness Kild that j she never went into tho room when j FURNESS WAS NAKED. j Sho romped on the bed once only with j him while Mrs. Furness was there. ! William Herbert Smith, carrier, had : known Furness since he was a boy. Had seen him every day. and had never known him under the influence of liquor. Witness remembered being on Wellington-terrace early one even- j Ing In 1913. He saw Mrs. l-'urness ; thcro In company with a man. who : was afterwards pointed out to him aa Cooke. i Counsel Neilson: You say it wan a ! man about your own height? — A man about your height. It mir/ht have been j you. (Loud laughter, In which the i judge joined.) Charles. Harvey, a comira! -looking : bloke with the leery look of the Coster, said that ho was with the previous witness when Mrs. Fumes* ami j Cooke passed. Smith said to wltnes»— here witness honored bin Honor with a wlae-looklng and most pronounced j ! wink. i Counsel Nell«on (wnrniiißly): Now, now! That's not evidence, and wo don't want the wink. ; Ethel Council, a sister of Furj ness's brothor-ln-law, wilii that on ! Juno 13 lust «he «aw respondent and ! co-respondent walking, arm-in-arm, I towards the tram. Mrs. irwln. respon--1 Oent'H mother. »'«« there. ! Norman Leslie .Stephens had lived j with the Furnesses at Hutuital, utid saw Furnoss dally. Had never Been petitioner 111-treat his wife. Had heard no filthy language. Kdgar McArdle. Secretary of th« i Wellington Loan Co.. sultl that he had ntaycri at tb« Bristol nnd remembered the FurnesKcs coming to th« Hrlntol, ! and Cooku arriving nt the «:iiKe time. WitJH'.MS »!iw Furnesa every day. :uul had never seen Mm wik»<t th« Inthtenco of li(|iior. Tom A. Munt, of U>" OriM of Muni. Cottrell and Co., said thnt he l;ne\v both Mr. and Mrs. Furncsf. WHuenn un<l his wife had been on visiting termi* with them. Had never known rurnean to behave an ho should not. His peneral nttlludo was excellent. In the course of bustuejw wtlmmt luul sgen him dally, nnd h«<l never J-een him tinder the intluenc of Uyuor. (leorjre W. Roblnj«o«!, Chief Toll Clerk In the Welllnirton Harbor Uonnl. save nlmlUir *-vliitnr«-, Clauilo Alex. MeKetul^. steward. poHltlveiy ?jwor<« ro having wn reflpotjiU»H ami ro-r«?i«pon<Jenl coming o»H at tt ilotfti-iiuilrit <i\bin on the Ivnwler Mmi Jay trip at tic M««rl. Thin «'«» «Ptc.ltilly «l»fnUH-:ini from the f.tct tjwl S on these e.xctirnlons pnnucttgnrn nre not j allowed below.

Archibald Hale Munro, Wellington Harbor Board, said that tho petitioner had worked under him for eleven years. He had been permanent laborer, storeman and tolls clerk. He was a very capable man, and NO COMPLAINTS HAD BEEN MADE as to his conduct Ho had been shifted to the tolls office m consequence of the fact that Mrs. Furness had called at tho office one day with tho information that her husband was laid up, and the doctor advised that some outside employment should be given him. Cross-examinod, witness said that Furness's promotion had been as rapid as that of other employees m the service. No one had been promoted over bis head, Ro-cxamincd by Counsel O'Leary, witness said that many men passed through his hands, and he generally had an idea as to their prlvnto habits. In opening for the defence, Lawyer Neilson said that hi 3 answer was a positive denial of any misconduct an the part of the respondent. The room the couple had occupied at both hotels was used as a bedroom, sitting room, card room, and smoke room. The defence would show that, If any misconduct took place, it was only tho natural consequence of tho husband's behavior. The petitioner constantly threw CoOke and his wife together. His conduct had not only boen careless and indifferent, but absolutely sinister. It would be shown petitioner had been guilty of cruolty — that he had beat his wife and used the foulest language towards her.

Blanche I •outs* Furness, wife of the petitioner, then took the stand. Her evldeneo naturally divided Itself into four historical periods— -IMrle-stre-ot, ■ HatalUil. the Waverley Hotel, and the I Bristol Hotel. She denied persistent- j ly and consistently thnt she had ever been guilty of misconduct with urtyonc, and accused her bun hand of being cruel, an habitual tlrunkard. nnd a runner after oi!kt women. She said j that the petitioner lunl been addicted ! to drink from the very ttm. He ilranU j In the houso with whisky brought home ; from the Harbor Hoard. On one oeeji- ! Klon ho came homo on a Saturday uf- t ternoon ; WITH SOMKTIHNtt IN HIS POSSESSION ! be »lioul<l not have had. They had v i row un«l ho struck her. Tfu* witness I then entered Into a long account, v* ; far back nn 1908, us to various nets of • cruelty and drunkenness ot which her husband luul been euittv. On one or- j cußton she went to I'Mcton for a fortulKhl with her htinbuml. He w«« nor i »ol*r nil the time they were there, and. ! on the day they left for Wellington. h«* luul to be belpeil aboard. Whl)« ut the j Waverley Hotel, uho haO no money : from her husband except what nhe took ', from bin pockets. Friend* of hl» ««l---vhi-d him to remove to another por- | Uon of the hoti** n* the flat they then ' occupied ) WAS KNOWN AH THK ".SOAXPAI. i FLAT." nnd nhr might sret mtxe.r] up with other mnrrletl ladies. WllnejMj often went

i to pictures with co-respondent At first she did not like going, but her husband ! Insisted, and said -that she was tod j damned innocent and prudish. Afterwards they removed to the Bristol. It I was not at witness's request that Cooke removed with them. In the Bristol her husband drank, and often took bottles of whisky to McArdi^B room. Ono night, McArdle cams t<> the door of thofr room and demanded whisky. Cooke interfered, and said that Mac. ought to have some respect for a wife. Mac. yelled out "b — " at the top of his voice arid went away. During dinner* one night, , her husband looked at hio watch half -a-ddzen times. Witness jokingly said, "You aro looking at j your watch very frequently." Ho lost his " temper, and shouted, "You're a b l!ar!" Witness got suspicious. and followed him to the Post Office. He waitod round m the teeming" rain for half a:\ hour or over. He mot someone, but witness could not say whether it was a man or a woman. That same day she saw him talking to a common prostituto named Allen, m Cuba-street That night and tho foll lowing morning, petitioner and reI spondent had rows. After breakfast, ' witness packed up a few things and w.ent out to her sister at Lyull Hay. THAT WAS THE END OIF THIS CHAPTER. as fur aa she and her husband wore concerned. From there sho went to her rnothor's house, whero sne had been since. In answer to general questions, witness said that her husband had never personally accused her of Indiscretions with Cooke. Nellie Roxburgh had often said tnat she would be the socond Mrs. Furnese. With regard to tho stark naked incident both Nelltd and her husband laughed at tho cohtretomps. As far as tho Easter Monday trip" to Plcton woo concerned, she denied absolutely being In tho cabin with Cooke. Cooke nover came Into nor room m his pyjamas. Her married lifu hud been miserable from tho beginning, and her husband hart often said Unit he did not marry tho girl he wanted. In cross -examination, a battle royal ensued between lawyer O'Loary and tlio lady. According to her, each of the witnesses for tho petitioner hud committed wilful and corrupt perjury— und tokl wicked lies. With regard to drinking m tho Wavorloy Hote!, she said, "1 have not subpoenaed anyone us to drinking there. 1 tried to. but no on« would come. I cannot AFFORD TO lIUY EVIDENCE with a bottle of whisky. Unfortunately tho two witnesses woro dead who could testify to cruelty. In Plrlevrtriwt, ho struck me on threo occasions. At Hntaltal. ho struck in* several times, but there wore no wttnofisoß present." Continuing, wltncwi said it wns a wicked thing for her liunband to miy ho had told her it would be a good thing if Cooko kept out of the room. Counsel: I suggest that Cook© got i more attention fiom you than your i husband?~Nclthcr got much attention. Witness, continuing. naU\, m a bit of a Hurry. "Wo both mnrrUsa tho wronjt person. I did not Jove him vrlum I married him. 1 llkotl Cooke an n friond and wo often played tennis together." Coutmcl O'iMdry: Tho poor old hun- ' band wn« at home? — If ho had Uei»n ft ; nmn he I'ouM »«""« "topped It Mr. Cooko was a thorough gentleman a|. | ways. Counsel: No doubt. These men nlways nre.— My husband loft nui In a '■ io»npro:nl.Hln«r position with Cooke. I ixmi «o opportunity (</ commit adultery | if I so wl«he*l. In answer to further question*), wit- ! n«»n wild Cookf had been wore of v : brother than v fri<?iicj. Coun<iPl: I »uittrost mow of a hti»banO than a brother. | Willie**: Tlutl «ÜB(ft>«Uon m wrong. MoArtllt»"i» evidence \n nnoUuir lons ll.it lof fah««*hootls. I K^nvrally rond jmmuiv novpl»fti«>«. I don't like nwiKHxmrji. : Cooke nomvtim«» rvnii mnimxiuc>«, ;unl I gometlmoi* convrr««Ht. w«> ; NKVKH IwVY DOWN TOdKTHKH. Milan M«y Mt«K«njtu«. f«rm«Tly !iw»ime«»r«*.t» of th« UHntol H*>i»l, !i.»i<i > M wrt,-» the duly of th« <lon}"f«tlv^ to r«*. j port humi>liMouh clrcumsuuu-oH. No!li«' ' Roxburgh had ii<jvor tmul* any report | r^iruriilne Cookr nn<\ Mm, Kornriui. WitftttNt h»«l certainly nnwM drink on KurnciW. ICllßabcth Irwln. mother of th« res-

spondont, said that she had reared ten children, of whom nine wero living and all married. Sho was sorry to say that the petitioner and her daughter had lived a most unhappy life. Sho had often seen tho petitioner helplessly drunk. Sho had heard him uso ob- ; scene and disgusting language to his wife. In reply to Counsel O'Lenry; Her daughter was not quick tempered, though a llttlo trouble might have altered her. Cooke had visited tho house ;it Plrlc-strcet, as a friend and a gentleman, often and often. Witnoiw could not remembor Purnens offering to keep his wife at her house If »ho would give up Cooke. Tho three counsel then addressed the. jury at length, artor wnioh his Honor, In a mlnuto analysis of the evidence, said that an act. such as alleged against tho respondent atfd co-respon-dent, was GENERALLY DONK IN THIS DARK and m silence. It was not until tho parties got to tho Wavortpy Hotel, when Cooke came upon the scene, that the real evidence began. After a short time tho most frUmdly relation*) sprung up between the Furnesflcs and Cooko. The jury had to niako up their minds that thoro wan a disposition on ' the part of Cooke to take advantage ot tho position, ami that there was a disposition on the part of Mrs. J-'urncss to yield to that advantage, m itself, the cvldon.ee of tho man and wife was not sufficient to convict of adultery. The real iaauo wan whether tho Jury would accept tho evidence of Nelllo Roxburgh. Tho onus of proof of adultery was on the petitioner, white the onus of proof of connivance won on re«nondent. A» far oa connivance was concernod. then? must be somothlng more than "lot It rip." U muM be shown that Furnens was willing that Cooko should tako advantago of his wife. After a brief retirement, tho Jury returned a verdict n« follows, on Uio isHUoa submitted to thorn: — J. Was the petitioner lawfully married to tUe respondent?^ — Yen. i. Did the respondent commit adultery with thQ 00-respondonr?— No l\. Did the co-respondent commit adultery with tho respondent? — No. 4. Was the petitioner accessory to. or did ho connive at, tne adultery alleged? — No. 6. Waa the petitioner, during four years and upwards prior to tho petition, mi habitual drunkard ?—N<>. C. Wan tho petitioner habitually guilty of cruelty towarda tho roapon-dent?—-No. The petition was ncfordinffly .dismissed. Th<> question ot eoutii wn« adjourned, to be dealt with In ('haiuUem On Thumlfiy mornhm Ibm thlx "cuuk* 1 e<li»l>n<" mirlu-d Kit (limits wlii>n tho question *>t <?oh(k w«« argue*) before tilx Hmt«r JmlK<» Hawking. Coun#u\ (YIA-i\ry nod St-il/ton mavp<l formally ttmt iho petition and c^untofpetUlon be dUmliubM!. Hi* llon^r, In onKrlnK ihelr removal, commented ihai «h««r<> w?i« no i»vldi-.nco of drunkontu-fu* or cruelty on Oi<> part of Uio petitioner. Had U not t.«?cn for Uu« fiH*i that )w («>n,ildrrcd that iho petitioner was <-wUl«<d to « puDllo verdict on U)*>s*< e<jtinl«, he would imve dirtied th«* jury t<. find iluU Utvre. wn# no evidence u> nupitort ihr«t' two «Jl«'«nUc»n»i, Tlu-n « t>rtttl<* n»y«l iuhu^i] on \hv nutrition lit cuHist, Hi* Iltifttir i-xtU (n---to c«n»ldcr:Ui«»n the fact t h<t i tu<- p«-(t-turner was <>nly ! * wuK«>M<nrn<r, ]t vent* finally dwUlrd that wm* uhouui to nil.mvd on th« louvr *<«»!<■: 1{<»«---jM)n4«r»u £Z» with £,U f.rt for t)><' *»«-r---«nd «!;*>'; co-r«tf»ptiu«t«?nt. i;2o wtiu *.'• !w for tlte «rr<ond i\ny: cutm <>t th«? ronunitnnon« plti* ftUbtin^ut^niis JI6

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item
Bibliographic details
Word Count
5,036

DOUBLY-DESIRED DIVORCE DENIED NZ Truth, Issue 455, 7 March 1914

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working