IN DIVRCE

NZ Truth, Issue 827, 17 September 1921, Page 6

IN DIVRCE

Cole v. Cole and Hempelman

Wellington Schoolmaster and a

Soldier's, Spouse.

An undefended action m divorce, which for some strange reason was either carefully- camouflaged or "ignored'- altogether by the Wellington "day-lies", was heard by Mr. Justice Salmond last week.

The petitioner was a grievouslywounded returned soldier, named Patrick Edward Cole, and m accusing his wife, Maud . Lillian Cole of gross Infidelity, he joined as co-respondent Frederick A"e us^ Hempelman,' a Wellington schoolmaster.

Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the aggrieved hubby,- who said he married his wife m July, 1906, and they had one' child,,* 'born m 1916. - Petitioner said he' went away with the troops to Samoa m 1914. and returned m April. 1915, and was in 1 camp m New Zealand for five months before leaving for the front again. He said he had first met co-respondent OHempelman m 1912. While m camp In 1915, petitioner said he came home on leave one day and his" wife met him at the door and somewhat surprised him by saying, "Why didn't you let me know you were coming ?" He reckoned he found the reason for his wife's query when ha got inside, for there was a cosy little tea table LAID FOR TWO and Hempelman was there reclining at his ease. Petitioner also recounted seeing his wife with Hempelman m: 1914, and that when he tackled her on the subject she denied it- Petitioner said he was returned badly wounded m 1919 and had been ln Trentham ever since. -From information he had since received and from inquiries he had made, he had instituted the divorce proceedings. Mrs. A. Kitchen, formerly a midwife employed at a maternity hospital, deposed that In May, 1917, respondent Maud Lillian Cole was admitted to the hospital m question, suffering from the after- effects of a miscarriage. (Cole had been away at the front for two years by this time.) A man, who said his name was "Mr. Cole", visited respondent at the hospital. , Mrs.. Lye, sister of. petitioner, stated 1 that during the time her brother was away she on occasions visited her sis-ter-in-law's house. She said she found Hempelman there .on (more' than one occasion. Witness said that when she paid one visit m particular, Mrs, Cole was m her bedroom, and Hempelman came m. When witness left the house Hempelman was m the BEDROOM WiITH MRS. COLE. Evidence was also given as tol the serving of the divorce papers. Although this was an undefended action, it is alleged that on behalf of an interested party, efforts have been made to make the woman appear /the greater sinner. This, however, is not the opinion of the aggrieved husband, who intimated through his lawyer, that he was quite .agreeable that his wife should have the custody of the only child of the marriage, a thing he would not have donp had he believed his wife to be the abandoned woman inspired rumor would make her out to be. •

His Honor granted a decree nisi with costs against Hempelman, the co-respondent. < •■ ' '