MATEER'S MATRIMONIAL MIX-UP

NZ Truth, Issue 852, 18 March 1922, Page 5

MATEER'S MATRIMONIAL MIX-UP

A TRIPLE ALLIANCE

Misconduct With A Housekeeper - [jury finds for petitioner '" . *V. '.. '■ ■ ■

(From ''Truth's" Hamilton Rep.)

' When Thomas James Mateer, rail-, vavman, of Matamata, failed to seure an annulment of .his: marriage vith his wife, Effie, at the „, October Ittihg of the Hamilton Supreme !?ourt, he engaged 'Tec.- Potter, of Auckland, to shadow the lady, with n view to having, another shot at a' iivorce. On the first occasion, it will )e remembered by readers of "Truth,"'! £200 was claimed against another; narried riiari - named " Goodwill, . whcV kvas joined as co -respondent. -On that bocasion. the jury, brought m an ex-^ traordinary verdict, for while they^ found for ' respondent, tfyey added .. a. rider of. sympathy # with petitioner that he had not succeeded m proving his case. 'Tec. Potter's activities,, tiowever, since found, Effie living as housekeeper to a" widower with six. Shildren, name.d ' George 1 Rogers, ofriamilton East, , and his story before !vrr. Justice Stringer and a jury of twelve dri Monday, when Mateer igain petitioned for annulment; : Rp-, gers being joined >as co-respondent, makes somewhat interesting readingLawyer Dick Singer, of Auckland,, 'again appeared for Mateer, , Lawyer [Cox, tor . respondent, and ; Lawyer Nortli'croft " for iVca- respondent. ' " . . 1 ■ Petitioner said he married" respondent 'In June, .191&' there being one of the marriage. .Ori January B, m answ.erto a wire frOm Potter, X journoyed down from •Matamata.' Kd the same night, '• with Potter, he Bk,; WATCHED THROUGH THE, . Jf WINDOW of Rogers's house and. saw his wife there. He did not see Rogers that night, but on the« following night, after watching for several hours, they, moved up to the house together, when Potter knocked at the door and Rogers answered- from . respondent's bed, asking who was there. Potter asked if Mr. Mateer was there, saying he wanted' to make an inquiry.. Petitioner' was at this time, standing, by the window, and heard whispering from the bed, and then saw Rogers get out of bed. Potter said he. wanted to find his (Mateer's) whereabouts, as, his brother was m: hospital and wanted him to cbmriiuriicate with him.. \ Rogers went into' the passage ;and said that Mrs. Mateer was m bed. He called out something to respondent, who replied from, the bed. Potter left by tho gate and a few seconds later loined petitioner. Rogers hurried back into the house, latched the, bedroom window* and then left the room. Potter flashed, a light into the room nn-d called out m a" loud voice to petitioner, "See his clothes hanging on the bed rail." Respondent then Jumped out of bed and drew the blind. Petitioner and Potter then entered the house, but co-respondent's clothes had by this time been removed from the bed -Tail, and were lying behind the door of a bedroom m which co-re-spondent's children . were sleeping, while Rogers' was sitting on the edge of the bed- As petitioner entered, Rogers got into the bed with the children and pulled the blankets over him. Petitioner told Rogers, he had. been Pleeping with > his (petitioner's) wife for weeks. Rogers made no reply. Petitioner then went into respondent's >.edropin and said, "I have got you <■ now, Erne." ' Her reply was to ask i him not to make any noise over it. [ Petitioner then told her she might as well have ; rnffled/ Rogers's place m the bed and' moved ! his cigarettes. '■'" During his cross-examination ,by | Mr. Cox,' petitioner,, who had been i accommodated /with a" seat near, the 'witness box. kept i 1 JUMPING UP IN HIS' EXCITEMENT . which led his Honor to tell him to ' either sit down or stand up, but not to keep, acting like a jack'-i.n-therbox to the annoyance of everybody. Petitioner said . that since his last petition for annulment^ his wife had ksued him for 1 maintenance, before m. magistrate^ and had been awarded ■35s a week and custody, of tho child; Ho paid this maintenance until liewas--1 told that respondent was living with, Rogers, when he' stopped -payments.. 1 Cross-examined by Mr. Northcroft, fdr co-respondent, netitioner said he * went to Potter m October last and masked him to watch his wife, "as he suspected her" of loose habits. Potter l agreed to take on the? job, and said his fee would be £2 2s a day. - ' ► Mr. Northcroft: For -how many . days? •■•■:. .'' ' - ', ! . ) The Judge : While he was on, the Ijob ?— Yes. - His Honor : And any . bonus for success ? (Laughter.)— No. .v. Petitioner said he paid Potter £15 \ there and then, but the detective, after ' an investigation, reported that he had mo evidence against his wife. .He ' had m all, paid Potter about £50. k On the Saturday night -they did not Bee anything of Rogers/ but they saw i respondent go to bed about 9 o'clock, } and 'she left the light burning until L one o'clock m the morning. „ ..-'.; t Pressed as to why neither he nor Potter flashed their lights through the window before Potter , knocked at the ' door, when respondent/and co-res-pondent could have been seen m bed together, petitioner said he did( not know but what . lier - brpther have been < sleeping with her, as her brothers had ,often slept with. h,er. Mr. Northcroft : , And I suppose you. were both dressed m proper detective style on this night. Did you .both wear rubber boots ?— Well,, I didn't;, I don't know- what Potter .wore. . Mr. Northcroft : And what did you wear ?— I took, off my boots. Mr. Northcroft : -, And did POtter wear a. false moustache ?— I could 1 not say. ■•','„• * •'.-..■', Are you quite sure ? — I 'cannot really say. ' Petitioner continued, iri cross-ex-amination, that when the light was flashed into the window, Rogers " was standing m the room, while a pair of pants, a pair of. socks, and a waistcoat were hanging over the rail at the . foot o"f the bed. Petitioner called out demanding to be admitted, stating that he , was not divorced and that he wanted to see his ' wife, who was m ' the house. He denied • /WANTING TO FIGHT

Rogers, or of saying that he was a hard-working fellow and that as his last petition had cost him £ 300 somebody vwould have to pay it. >" JaiAs? fLawrence Potter, private in-. "*Q'ui/ry^sg?rit, 9aid he was first.instructedr to w^tch. Mrs. Mateer m October of last year. She was then living with her mother. Mrs. Coekhead, m Hamiltc.i East- On Januaj-y 20 of this year he went alpne s tp Rogers's house, near where he took up a position. About 8.30 o'clock a light; appeared m Mrs. Cockhead's bedroom. He saw both respondent and , co-r respondent undress and get- together "■ into bed, when the light was put out. - As a result of what he saw he wired to Mateer. -who came to Hamilton the following night. Together they went to the- house, but they dirj not see Rogers about at all that night. On Sunday evening, the 22nd, witness -again took up a position m a hedge opposite the house, and was. joined by Mateer later. No light appeared m the house at'all that night,, although, he had seen Rogers moving about the front. ■ About 11 o'clock he and Mateer moved

up to the house and they listened out- • side the window. ' : Witness's remaining evidence corroborated that of -Mateer. Cross-examined, witness said he was eleven years m the police force. 'He left the force because he objected to a transfer which tihey wanted him to take. He denied having been promised a bonus if he was successful m case. He had given a, good deal K M evidence m divorce cases. When, ■lie first watched Mrs.- Mateer -inj.-Oc-tober, .'.he could 'find no evidence %'gainst her, although his inquiries led 'film to believe she was^ living a kind s 6t life she should not have been. .She 'wasi however, lying low at the time, Spending the result, of her application :5 f or maintenance. | J - Witness was cross-examined closely' Yks to his methods of inquiry m these Bases, and said they consisted, mostly of watchingj( - f'- ; Mr. Northcroft : Peeping., I suppose? ■'"' Witness : . Well, yes, if you like to put.it that way?. . _..,» . '■''■ Mr. Northcroft : And what is your •charge 1-—&2 2s a day and expenses. •.And how long did you watch ?—Ten 'days. 1 , ! '•'•■' And you were taking Mateer's riiohey all' this time ?— Yes. ■ Easily earned money, ..wasn't it ? — I: thought it was 'hard earned.

(New Zealand's Champion Rifle Shot.) He doesn't even have to try To spifiicate that old bull's, eye; Just shuts both eyes, and hangs' away, AJid hits it every time,. they say. Round corners he 'can also shoot; , ' In fact, he is a dinkum beaut. . And yet there's me who cannot hit A haystack when I'm close to it.

And why did you watch all this ( • time ?— -To see if she wentv out, and her movements generally.-' ' . . And if she had gone outi would you ; haye followed her wherever she went ? ] —I would have followed her wherever \ she went. , • ' And you .preferred this work to be- j ing, m the police force ?-^Yes. ; Mr. Northcroft : A strange choice ! -^-Yes' but .very handy when you want [evidence m these cases, Mr./,Northcroft. • ; Mr. Northcroft: Easily, earned money, wasn't it ?— I don't think so. I will be' prepared to do any work fqr you at the same rate. (Laughter-) . Itj -is legitimate work. - ' V His Honor : Any guarantee of results '■?■ (Laughter.): — No. Mr. Northcroft : In. mqving about the housed on these occasions you walked quietly, I suppose, like a detective should? (Laughter.) — I had rubber soles. /-■■ -> ; . That is part of ;. the professional equipment, is it' not ?— You say so. And you have, I suppose, .a lynx eye, like the true detective should? (Laughter.) — I can't say. ■ ■ ". Mr. Northcroft: You didn't mind peeping ?— No, I didn't mind peeping. But you didn't like fighting ?— Well, I. always "try to avoid violence. . Michael. McCormack, bailiff at Hamilton, said he served the writs on both respondent arid co-respondent, who were m a room at the Rogers's house. Rogers said, "Oh, let him get his divoi-ee, what's the use of defending it? • She is better without him." : This closed the case "for the peti---. tioner. ' Mr. Northcroft, m . opening for the ■defence, described the case as a sordid* one— as sordid as could, be imagined. Respondent arid co-respondent had come there' to answer a conspiracy as damnable as could possibly have come. : befd^iV any court. Mateer had been '••■• yy PURSUING HIS WIFE

for a long time with litigation. ■ He' had already' failed m an attempt to get a divorce. Having failed- m an amateur attempt to mislead the court, he engaged a professional detective to follow his wife about and search for anything- upon ; which a charge of adultery might be brought against her. Co-respondent happened to be a widower with six chiidreri to maintain, and the tragic part of the case was that Mateerr m his frenzy to get -rid of his wife, was ready to drag into court any unfortunate who happeried to come into his way;

Respondent denied having occupied the same room at any time with Rogers, wlio. engaged her to look after his children and to clean up the house. They were not on intimate terms'. It was not true that a man's clothing was hanging on the bed-rail ori the night of the raid. When the two men entered the house, the husband 'said he had Detective Potter with him. Respondent did not recognise Potter m court, however, as on the night of the raid he was wearing a, moustache. It was not a fact that there were cigarette butts lying near the bed. The husband did not enter the •room, but Potter did.

Cross-examined, respondent said her husband had always kept her without mon?y. It was not true he. gave her all his wages up till a certain date. She received £1 a week from Rogers for acting as his housekeeper. t Eliza 'Coekhead, mother of respond r

' ent, denied that, she told Mateer respondent was working for Rogers,, but was getting, no wages. Neither was it true that she told Mateer that she did not want her daughter to work for (Rogers.

t : George Rogers, -respondent, said he was - ". A PARTICULARLY POOR MANHe lost his wife .last year and was left with six children, ranging m age -up to. ten years. He knew, very little of Mrs. Mateer before she went to work for him. At first she simply worked for him m the day time," she leaving every night after things had been straightened up. It was because he (co-respondent) had to leave for work sometimes as early as 7 a.m. that it was .decided she, should sleep on the premises instead of getting up at 6.30 and coming along m time to cook his breakfast. Respondent (brought her two children with her to live at ■ his house. He denied the allegations of petitioner that he had occupied the -same bed as Mrs. Mateer on any occasion. On the night of January 22, when the knock came at the door, , witness opened the door and Potter was there, wearing a moustache. In answer to Potter's inquiry for Tom Mateer, witness" called . out to Mrs. Mateer, asking her if she knew her husband's whereabouts. Witness slept that night m a bed with two of his young children. As witness was getting- back into bed,. he noticed a light flashed through Mrs. Mateer's window on to his door. The- light was then shown thro gh his window- ' When Potter and Mateer entered, potitioner said to witness, "Now I have caught you, Rogers.". He then " wanted to fight, but witness replied that, he had nothing to fight over. Mateer said that his last attempt to get a divorce had cost £300, and somebody' would . HAVE Tb PAY FOR IT. Witness replied that he had no money. When the bailiff served them with, the papers witness said: "What ;is the use of fighting it; let him get his divorce, you are better .without him." Answering Mr. Singer, i witness said it was at Mrs. Mateer's suggestion that she slept on the premises -.instead of going home, a few yards -away, every" -night.'' At night witness . usually placed his ' clothes ,> on the floor near the door. His household expenses, including the £1 per ' week ' he paid Mrs. Mateer, amounted to £6 15s per week. . He had had l to borrow money for the purposes of his defence. , After a four hours'/retirement, the jury gave a verdict for petitioner.