THE WORTH OF A WIFE

NZ Truth, Issue 850, 4 March 1922, Page 6

THE WORTH OF A WIFE

£200 Damages Awarded % Parker Parted From His Partner. The first of many defended divorce petitions set down for hearing at the present civil sessioris of the Auckland Supreme Court came before Mr. Justice Herdman and jury last week. The petitioner was, William J: Parker, upholsterer, Ponsonby, and m seeking release from Kathleen Parker he alleged that she had shattered the seventh commandment with Albert Bates, a wharfle. Besides seeking divorce, together with the custody of the two children. Willie reckoned he should get anything up to a thousand "quidlets" from Bates m the way. of damages. Lawyer Dickson represented Parker and Lawyer Osborne-Lilly loked after Kathleen and Albert. Petitioner said that on September 6, 1909, he put the ring on the third finger of Kathleen's left dook, and they, had ..- since resided m Auckland. Things went along just so until he began to hear things about Kathleen's conduct, but whenever he questioned her she denied any suggestion of being an unfaithful spouse. Willie took her word for it. Periodically last year his health had not .been too good and he had to go to the hospital. On coming home again a chap named Vaudrey whispered that Bates had just about lived at Willies house while he (petitioner) was away. He had another word with Kathleen and this time • SHE WENT OFF "POP" and fiercely denied the accusation. As Kathleen was telling 1 her friends what a good chap Bates was, petitioner had a word with her. . This was on New Year's Eve, when a Miss McAlpine was present.. This time Kathleen told him to "go to out of this. I don't want you. It's Bates 1 want; He is going to stick to me and marry me." Willie said "Bates- will never marry you," and she replied "My , he will have to marry me after what has happened., He can't turn me down now." He asked if she and Bates had been sinning together and she answered, "Ah, that's what you have got to find out." Bates had no permission to be constantly at his home, and when he had challenged Bates about carrying on with Kathleen, corespondent denied ever being out with her. Cross-examined by Mr. OsborneLilly, petitioner denied occupying Kathleen's room since January and said that since October he had slept on the verandah. On New Year's Eve they had a few drinks. He may have asked Bates to come along that evening, but-'he thought he arrived at his! wife's invitation. Before the papers were served he had told the pair that he was out for a divorce. Beatrice 'McAlpjine, upholsterer's* finisher, said she had y been boarding at^Parker's since February. She frequently saw Bates at the house and had been out with Mrs. Parker when the latter would meet Bates. . About 10> o'clock one night while Parker was m the hospital she saw Bates go into Kathleen's bedroom Witness had told her she would be caught by her husband and she replied that it would be HER OWN FUNERAL. Kathleen had also told her that Bates was a man m a thousand, and not like Parker. On New Year's Day, when Parker was out, Bates, went into Mrs. Parker's room, and was there two hours or more. In answer to his Honor, witness said that after the , divorce papers were served, Mrs. Parker said she would subpoena witness. Witness said, "Well, Mrs. Parker, all I know is against you-" This caused Mrs. Parker to call witness "a thing" and remark that if she were half a woman she would leave the house. Robert H. Vaudrey, who, with his wife, lived at Parker's, gave evidence that Bates used to call at the house both (morning and night, and they often saw the pair on familiar terms. On one occasion witness came out of the bathroom' and saw Bates going into Mrs. Parker's bedroom. At this time Parker was, in the hospital. Witness spoke to her about her behavior and she told him to "go to ." Witness "got." Alice Frances Rothwell said she had just been married that day. She had been lodging with the Parkers, and twice saw acts of impropriety taking place between Bates and Mrs. Parker. This was the case for petitioner. The respondent gave a flat denial that there had been any Impropriety. She said that when Vaudrey spoke to her she told him to go and tell Bates and her husband, .but he afterwards denied to her husband tnat ; lie had made any allegation. On New Year's Eve they had all 'been drinking and did not know what they were doing. She admitted Bates HAD OFTEN KISSED HER, ' but she never knew anything about the divorce proceedings until , two days before the papers were served upon her. Up till then she and her husband had been quite happy. She had never done anything to be ashamed of and the allegations against her were quite untrue. Ryno Fraser said he had been nine months at Parker's, and he never saw anything between Bates and Mrs. Parker to which exception could be taken. The co-re-, Albert Edward Bates, also denied that there had been any improper relationship. At times he met respondent at race meetings and went home with her. He admitted kissing Mrs. Parker, but said that It was a common thing m Parker's home for the men to kiss the women. After his Honor's address, the jury retired and very shortly returned, finding that respondent and co-res-pondent had committed adultery and awarding petitioner £200 damages," with costs on the higher scale against the co-re. The question of the custody of the children was reserved, petitioner being granted custody m the interim.