A CONNUBIAL CATASTROPHE

NZ Truth, Issue 852, 18 March 1922, Page 6

A CONNUBIAL CATASTROPHE

Boag's Bad Break

Divorce Denied to; Deluded Devotee.

(From "Truth's" Christchurch Rep.) The marriage of Andrew Duncan Boag and Constance Alice Llghtfoot Boag culminated m the Supreme Court at Christchurch last when the ' male half of the alliance petitioned for a divorce from the female ditto. The application was lodged under tho 1920 Act, entitling one of tho parties to a divorce after a separation has been m force three years or more. Tho defence was- a* denial that respondent and her husband had agreed to separate or that the separation had lasted three years. She also alleged that petitioner was; guilty of adultery at Palmerston North; at the Petane Hotel, Napier, and elsewhere. In answer to this, the petitioner denied that adultery was committed at such a time as would influence the separation. Mr. W- J. Sim appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. F. D. Sargent for the respondent, the^ former, at the commencement of proceedings, asking that the suit should be heard m camera. In support of this application, Mr. Sim said petitioner denied the allegations of adultery and, m; order to show the real, cause of the separation between the parties it would be necessary for him to go into certain details of the married life which were unpleasant and publication of which would- be UNFAIR TO CERTAIN PEOPLE unable to protect themselves. Mr. Sargent said he offered no strong objection to Mr. Sim's application, although he would point out that neither m the pleadings nor m any other form had he until the day previously received notice of the petitioner's intention to (bring forward the" details suggested. His Honor said it was a question whether Mr. Sim was, at liberty to introduce such evidence without it having been' cited m the petition. He doubted if petitioner was at this stage entitled to introduce allegations of adultery, by the respondent. Mr. Sim said that on such grounds no petition would be lodged by his client. After further discussion his Honor said . that at the 'present juncture it , was very undesirable to order that the case should be heard m camera unless, of course, it "was shown later that the j evidence warranted it. He had found m Christchurch. that the Press' exercised^' very wise discretion m their reporting. • ' Andrew Duncan Boag said he mar- j rled the respondent on March 8, 1911, when he was 22 years of age and respondent 24. The marriage had never been a success. At first the couple lived at Fendalton and later .went to Palmerston North, where witness went into business as a motor garage proprietor. During, their life together respondent had had three children- The parties were riot on friendly terms and, previous to 1917 they had not lived together as man and wife. Just before Easter, 1917, they discovered that they had NO TIME FOR ONE ANOTHER and couid not . be bothered with each other. He found that his wife had deceived hirii m the matter of her immediate relatives, she having led him to 4>elieve that she was an orphan. Some time after the marriage, however, her father shocked petitioner by writing for maintenance. Then, on top of that surprise, a sister of respondent turned up and lived at the Boag' homestead for a while. She also had a brother, a major, who went to the war and about whom she had 1 not told her husband. In fact he began' to feel sorry that h9 had mixed with his -wife's family. Things got worseVand worse. His Honor: Do you mean that more relatibns were turning up? Petitioner replied m the negative. Things m the house merely got worse and worse until the/ couple eventually drifted right apart and took to separate rooms. Respondent had A VERY VIOLENT TEMPER

and had attacked petitioner with a knife on one occasion. There had been a fair number of "scenes" m the house. About Easter, 1917, witness motorcycled over to the Napier motor races. It happened that a party comprising Mr. Sweeney, Miss Sweeney and Miss also went to the sports. Swe?nsy and petitioner shared a room m Napier and the latter didn't see much of any of the ladies while there; ho was too busy racing and training. While at Napier he scarcely knew . Miss—-* — . Nevertheless his home was locked against him when he returned to Palmerston North, and his wife, who was in' a violent temper, ordered him' out of the house, her grievance evidently being on account of the girls. When kicked out petitioner spent that night m his car &t the garage and sub 7 sequently took up his abode there permanently. The state of affairs since ihad been so unsatisfactory that petitioner would have done almost anything to get quit of the marriage. On one occasion since the - separation, when he had gone to see the children, respondent refused to allow him l into the house, and attacked him with a table knife. Petitioner detailed his movements from the time of the separation until May, 1918, when he went into camp, where he stayed about six months. He ' denied having misconducted himself with,- Miss : before the' time of the separation, the cause of which was merely incompatibility. He admitted, however, that "a little after the time the deed was fixed up he misconducted himself. When he came out of camp he was very worried and wrote numerous letters to his wife, making statements in-order to give her evidence on which she could divorce him, as she had stated her willingness to do so if she could get evidence. He admitted misconduct with Miss ? — — , but not to the extent mentioned m the letters. He could recall no occasion on which his wife had asked him to ireturn to her. To Mr.' Sargent: After leaving*camp, complainant visited his wife, but did not recollect having any meals m the house. He denied' having stayed under the' same roof as his wife, for a couple of nights following; ;his return, from camp.' Did you tell your wife you were infatuated with Miss - : -?— -I may have done so. . Did you get some special transfers with an ivy leaf on one side and "Anlraw Boag" on' the other? — Yes. On account of that 5 infatuation, did pour wife write your mother and sister?— She wrote them, but I don't ■know what about. But as a result of v fhe letter, your Bister and mother came to Palmerston North?— Yes. Didn't both -your sister and mother sympathise with your wife over your Infatuation with this girl and say it was a cruel -blow to the family?— l do notthirik so. ' Yes; my mother might haye said so, but at the time she only knew my wife's side, of the affair. Didn't your sister discuss with you your infatuation with jMiss ? — No, I don't remember that she mentioned her name. Do you still swear that before Octo-r; ber, 1917, there was noS. infatuation or' familiarity between you • and Miss — -?— Yes. When did the infatuation originate? —Some time after that date. Hi's, Hohor:' v How did the -suggestion come about m August that you were infatuated? Was it .-just a. coincidence that your wife should guess it then?— X don't'-4<now, unless someone had seen me just talking to her. Mr: Sargent." Was Jt a coincidence that she went to .the Napier sports the ' same time as you did?— lt was a coincidence as far as I was concerned. 13 Ift correct that you and Miss ~—

stayed a. week together m Napier? — No, I wisli it was. Quite recently did you tell your wife that if she didn't withdraw her opposition to the divorce, she would be sorry for it? — Yes. I said if I were successful she might be sorry for it because ' tho deed might be reviewed. At the time of your infatuation with Miss , your wife was m a delicate state of.hoalth? — Yes. In fact she was m a certain condition and the child was born m November? — Yes. His Honor at this stage referred to Mr. Sim's earlier application concerning the hearing of the case m camera. From the evidence, said his Honor, it was clear that certain parties whose names were mentioned, had had no opportunity of replying to the accusations. It ,was a question, therefore, whether their names should <bi published. , Evidence regarding the length of time of the separation was given by H. C„ Collinson, ironmonger, and J. Sweeney, motor mechanic, both of Palmerston North. This concluded the case for petitioner. Opening respondent's case, Mr. Sargent submitted that there had been no evidence of a mutual separation which had been agreed*upon by the parties. Counsel dealt briefly with the section of the 1920 *"Act and pointed out that an amending Act passed last session took away the discretion of the court to grant a decree*'if the separation was due to any wrongful act or conduct on theipart of the petitioner. In the present case, if the separation' had been m force for three years, it had not been observed by the petitioner, the' cause of: the parties not living together being wholly due to petitioner's infatuation with Miss — — . Counsel submitted that this m itself was suffi- : cient justification', for respondent not living with her husband- Petitioner had admitted the untruth of statements he had made m certain letters and. yet he asked 'the court to believe a serious . . ' ' , , ALLEGATION AGAINST >'HIS WIFE. It was asked that the case be dismiss-ed-without calling on the respondent. Mr. .Sim contended that the separation had been. by mutual consent. His Honor pointed out that the court must be satisfied by all tlie circum-^ stances' that die separation- was mv- j tual. From his own evidence petition- I er had been responsible for the ' estrangement and by his' own letters he had said he was guilty of misconduct. - After considerable further argument, by counsel/ the respondent gave evidence. " She said that, during part of 1916 she and petitioner lived separately m the house on account of her ill - health. ; She then went to Christchurch for a holiday and after that the parties occupied the same room until before Easter, 1917. She became SUSPICIOUS^ OF BO AG, and he told her of his infatuation with Miss . When remonstrated with,' he refused to give up, saying that his wife was nothing to him. On his return from the bike races at Napier, her house was . locked, but respondent let him iri and told him 'he would have to sleep m another room; Later on he slept at. the garage. During 1918, before Boag went into camp, he stayed m the house for two nights and had some meals there. He also visited his wife several times while he was m camp and when on his 'tflnal leave he stayed with her about' a week. Respondent denied that she was a party to the separation. Mr. Sim submitted respondent to a lengthy cross-examination. Late m the afternoon his Honor called a halt m the proceedings and dismissed the petition," stating that the separation was clearly brought about by the conduct of the petitioner. Respondent was allowed costs on the highest scale-