Who Was "Mrs O'Neill"?

NZ Truth, Issue 1018, 30 May 1925, Page 5

Who Was "Mrs O'Neill"?

Mysterious Lady Linked up m a Divorce Case "If there were Better Men there Would be Better Women"-— Tangle of Matrimonial Interests— Strong Allegation's Denied By Wife "I Can't Keep Away" "If there were better men there would be better women," said a female witness when giving evidence for a petitioning husband m the Divorce Court m Wellington last week, m a case wnich held many singular features. The lady's observation followed her daughter's heated denunciation of ' the co-respon-dent as "not a man — he's a mongrel." N . . • Another feature of the case was the respondent wife's complete denial of many, suggestive allegations. She denied. i being the woman known as "Mrs. O'Neill" whom another witness had identified as she, and also denied being the lady seen .joy-riding with co-respondent m his motor-car.

Petitioner, William George Chandler, a plasterer's labourer, was represented by Mr. P. W. Jackson; , the respondent, Nellie Ivy Chandler, a prepossessing young woman, by Mr. I A." B. Sievwright; and the co-respon-dent, James Leach, part proprietor of the London Motors Company m 'Adelaide Road, by Mr. W. E. Leicester. Petitioner further sought custody 'of his two children and £ 300 damages from co-respondent on the ground of alleged adultery. The 'pros and cons were heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of 12. The parties were married m 1919, and 'there were- ; tw.o children of the union. Almost from the commencement, said Mr. Jackson, petitioner was "bothered, annoyed and pestered" by Leach's attentions to petitioner's wife, and eventually the husband . went to Leach and requested him to desist. Leach at first denied that he knew Mrs. Chandler, but afterwards admitted that he had known her before she was married, and promised he would not see the lady again. In spite of this, the evidence would show that the respondent had been at Leach's garage m Adelaide Road under suspicious circumstances, and that she had gone motoring with him to Happy Valley and also to Kaiwarra. The corespondent was a married man with a family, but had apparently been separated from his wife for some -time. It would be shown that Mrs. Chandler was repeatedly going out at night under the pretence of "going to the pictures," only to meet Leach "secretly and on the sly," One night she came home crying, and when asked by her husband what the tears were for she was alleged to have said, "Mr. Leach has lost one of his children." "A LONE SPOT ON A DARK NIGHT." Evidence would also show that respondent was seen to go into 1 Leach's garage one night and then go upstairs with him. Leach, it was stated; lived m rooms upstairs. That night she returned nearer . twelve i than eleven p.m. Petitioner said he had seen her go into Leach's, and she was compelled to admit that she had done so, but promised not to go there again. She broke the promise,, however, and m desperation Chandler went and saw the Sergeant of Police. Petitioner, even then, ,told his wife that he. was' ready to forgive her if she would make a promise not to see Leach again, but the woman said: "I can't make such a promise because I could not keep it; I can't keep away from him." Notwithstanding, this, the corespondent had the audacity to . pick up the, woman m his ; car a night later and take her. "to- a lone spot on a dark night towards Happy Valley, where the car was seen to. stop and the lights' turned out." 'After this incident petitioner left home. Evidence would ilso be given regarding further excur-* sions m a motor-car.

Petitioner's evidence was along the | ines of his counsel's opening-. He said le "had heard a bit about this man ..each" before he accosted him, and ihp latter said, that "it would not pciur- again.".. Witness described the occasions when he had followed the respondent. One night when he got home ie found a letter under the door from Leach stating that he had been told of oetitioner's accusations against him md daring him tq "go near the ilace." "That made me all the moi-e iletermined to do so," said: Chandler. When petitioner told Leach that he had seen' him with his own eyes, Leach was alleged to have said: "That doesn't matter, you have to prove ■adultery." "When petitioner put it ,to [Leach ..to come down and thrash the [matter put before his wife, Leach said, r'Your wife tells me that you. are a Ibit of a boxer," but Chandler said, l"Never mind about that now; we will Jtalkjabout that later." ; . I Mr. Sievwright: Did you speak to ■Leach several times m front of your ■wife? — -No, I'co.uld never get her there ■to face.it. • ' '"• I You have some furniture, haven't Rrou ? — The wife has. I Oh, the furniture is hers, then? — M Did you suggest that she should sell ■he piano m order to pay you so that Hou could go ahead with these pro■eedings —I did nothing of . the sort. ■ Did you not suggest to her that you Mould give her a share of the dam■bes obtained against Leach?— No, I ■td nothing whatever of 'the kind. 1 In not troubling her with the costs, Hen. If there are any damages at Hi they will go towards the support of He two children. ■■To Mr. Leicester petitioner said it His not until after the first, child was Hrn that he interviewed the coH^pondent. It was at his wife's reHest that he saw Leach. ; ■ ■■Mr. Leicester: If Leach says that .he ■Bs giving an instruction to a class HT the garage on the night you said Blu saw him with the respondent, and Hlls evidence to support him, what Hiuld you say?— lt would be all lies. Hpetitioner stated that from the time H left his home he had paid reguHrly toward his wife's maintenance, Hthough he was only receiving £4 4s H per week, and yet she had a sumHons served on him for alleged failure H maintain. • ■Hector M. Chandler, brother of the Htitioner. deposed to visiting the with Chandler and also seeing get into Leach's car. W\ir Sievwright: When you were up H the garage did you see a green HSry m the lane? — No. I wasn't lookH: for lorries. (Laughter.) HHames Reynolds, a car proprietor,. HLosed to being engaged by the to follow another car which ■I W as sure was driven by Leach. ML co-respondent picked, up a lady, H| then went to Happy Valley. ..-■> fljgE MYSTERIOUS MRS. O'NEILL. I^Bhe evidence took a more interestf^RJ turn when Winnie Brown, of 14 Place, recalled an occaHHi when she was asked by Leach ■Mbi-ing her gentleman friend for a ■■■or ride. Witness had been introlil.fi to Leach by a'- friend. The who was with Leach on the Hflfct of the joy ride was .Mrs. Chan dHHwho -was introduced to witness as O'Neill." She described another Iflßf with her friend m Leach's, car, again being accompanied by KHL O'Neill." On the first occasion B^Kh and "Mrs. O'Neill" got out of H^Bar, and went away for some time, jj^^wess and her friend remained m HHMcar. Witness learned from her ■BBer that the "Mrs. O'Neill" was HSlner than Mrs. Chandler.

Mr. Sievwright: What was the name ■of your gentleman friend?— Mick Whitlow. Where is he now?— l think he is m the Court as a witness. How long has he been m Wellington?—l don't know exactly; he was only away' in the country for a while. Are you still friendly with him?— No. How long is it since your friendship ceased?— -Three years ago. Mr. Jackson: What is the use of all this, Mr. Sievwright? 1 Mr. Sieviwriglit: I have never heard of this young man, unless he is a relation of the thing you sometimes get on ' your finger. (Laughter.) To witness: If Mrs. Chandler swears that she never was out with you m a .» • •

(Motor Importer and Sanders Cup . yachtsman, Duriedin). A wet sheet and a flowing sea, A wind that follows fast, And fills the- white and rustling sail, And bends the gallant must. — Allan Cunningham. ■ . ,

motor-car, and that you had made a mistake, what. would you say? — If she would swear a thing like that she would be telling lies. Witness, added that her mother had made her cease her friendship with Mrs. Chandler. She had seen the respondent going into Leach's garage. To Mr. Leicester witness admitted that her parents had complained about her going out with a young man m Leach's car, but she strenuously denied that she said to Leach: "It was a rotten thing of you to split on Mick and me." Mr. Leicester; Has Chandler been a frequent visitor to your house lately?— Only when he has come up about the qase. He never stayed more than an hour at a time. He came to see if you would give evidence for him, did he?— No, I would have given evidence m any case. Leach said he would ruin any girl that gave evidence against him. I am jolly sure he would not ruin me, Any way, that man is not a man, he's a mongrel. "-...• x Mr. Sievwright: The lady protesteth too much. „ .- ■ ' v Mr. Leicester: More than meets the eye, mayhap. The next witness was Mrs. Bolton. mother of the previous witness, who gave her evidence with equal clarity. "TOO RIGHT I DO." "Do you know a man named Leach?" asked Mr. Jackson. "Too right I do," put m witness forcefully, and went on to say how she had become acquainted with Chandler m consequence of what she had heard to . the effect that, Leach had been* driving out with her daughter m the same car. She went to the police arid subsequently found out that the name of O'Neill did not have' an owner m the street m which Mrs^ Chandler lived. She had been told to "try next door," but all without avail. However, she went back to Chandler's house that night, and was rewarded by seeing respondent's mother. "A nice old lady, indeed," added witness; "and she told me that Leach had ruined her daughter when she was seventeen, and she did not want my daughter to fall m the -same way." Witness admitted that she "had thought there was something dirty going on." To Mr. Sievwright: Witness recalled an occasion when she saw her daughter talking to Leach. "Yes, I remember that all right," said Mrs. Bolton, "as a matter of fact I went up and thrashed him with my umbrella." Of course you are sorry for Mrs. Chandler? — Yes, I am really sorry for her, because I think if there were better men there would be better women. I think she should have taken a little more care of her husband and her two wee kiddies. . Mr. Leicester: You objected to your daughter going out m a motor-car, and made up your, mind to stop it? — Too right I did; and I did put a stop to it. And your daughter was naturally angry at this? — How do you know? (Laughter.) For the respondent, Mr. Sievwright said that despite skilful allusions and inferences the evidence m the petitioner's case was really restricted to February 20 and 22. Mrs. Chandler would deny having been out m Leach's car. RESPONDENT'S STORY. Nellie Ivy Chandler gave evidence to the effect that prior to her marriage m 1919 she had been introduced to Leach, but had not been on friendly terms- with him. At most, it was nothing more than a mere, acquaintanceship. She and her husband -were on good terms until he contracted a disease and he started going out a good deal dancing. She was left alone at home to look after the children, and when she. did go out it was to the pictures. She had never been m

Leach's garage after dark, but had visited there twice m the daytime to use the telephone. She had never gone up the stairs at the garage, and had not accompanied him m the motorcar as alleged. She did not know Miss Bolton, and had never been out m a car with her or visited her house. Her husband, she said, used to have "parties" without her consent, and she went out to avoid them. There was usually beer and wine at these functions. .She remembered her husband asking her to go to Hamilton, but she refused because ho had no prospects there. In regard to the alleged promise she had made to refrain from seeing Leach again, respondent said it was not necessary to make such a promise when she had not been seeing Leach. : To Mr. Leicester: She never complained to her husband about Leach postering her, and Leach had never attempted to be familiar with her. She never told her husband that Leach would "turn her down and she was going to commit suicide." She had never helped Leach with his books. Mr. Jackson: You heard the evidence of your husband, his brother, Miss Bolton, Mrs. Bolton and the sergeant of police, five witnesses, and you contradict most of what they say? —I am saying what is right. She denied crying when she came home one night. "In this country adultery is not a criminal offence," said Mr. Leicester when opening for the co-respondent, "but it is recognised, and x'ightly so, as a serious offence against the moral code. Unfortunately, however, there is a tendency to think that if a man is cited as a co-respondent there is necessarily something wrong. This is a false view to take, gentlemen, and I hope you will not allow anything you have already heard to influence you against your better judgment or, to prejudice my client m any way, because I feel confident that he will be able to convince you, and convince you overwhelmingly, that the charges are groundless." There was only vague evidence of "pestering" and vague suggestions as to the two being together. There was no direct evidence of adultery having been committed by the respondent and the corespondent. It was fairly significant that after charging his wife and Leach with committing adultery on February 21, he had suddenly withdrawn the charge m connection with that date. It would be shown that the doors of th^ garage were actually open on the night petitioner said he visited the place and that Leach was engaged m giving instruction m motoring. Further, a man who had. slept above the garage until October would say that he had never seen Mrs. Chandler there at night. In short, petitioner's story "was wholly a concoction." Evidence along these lines was given by the ' co-respondent. THE CO-RESPONDENT'S VERSION Co-respondent absolutely denied the allegations of misconduct; and gave evidence to show that he was other-, wise engaged, instead of being, as alleged, m the company of the respondent. / A young man named Alfred Whitlow gave evidence- as to going "out m Leach's car m the company of Miss Bolton. Witness hired the car from' Leach, paying 10s or 32s 6d for the run. On the motor excursions referred to Leach had a woman named "Mrs. 6/Neill" with him. It was certainly nbt Mrs. Chandler. The lady with Leach was "about 45 and slightly fat." He. had not "seen "Mrs. O'Neill" since the last .time she accompanied the motoring party. His Honor. '.reminded the witness that although he had said that Miss Bolton introduced him to Leach, his evidence showed that he had actually known Mr. Leach two months before the introduction. .. James Alfred Christensen, a sailmaker, remembered going to church with Leach on Sunday, May 17, and returning to the home of witness with him. Leach stayed at his place until a late hour that night. . • William George White gave evidence as to going to Leach's garage accompanied by Mrs. Robinson. ' The? object of calling on Leach was to discuss the sale of a motor-car. This was on February 22. .. ■. Mr. Jackson: How long have you known Leach? — About 10 years;. I mean ■ his name has been familiar to me for that long. Did Leach know the lady you were with as Mrs. Robinson? — No, as Mrs. White. You live with her, then? — Yes. But she's not your wife? — Not yet. Witness went on to say that on the night m question Mrs. Robinson went upstairs to fix up some part of feminine attire that had come adrift when getting out of the car. Witness called her when ready to go. She wasn't up there long. ' -. § j Gwen Lilian Robinson remembered going with White to Leach's garage on the 22nd and going upstairs .as stated. ■ To Mr. Jackson, witness said she had torn her dress when alighting from, the car, and on asking Leach if there was any place where she could adjust things, he said she could go upstairs and ., fix her dress. Mr. Jackson: Did he not have the decency to show you, a lady, upstairs? You had never been up before? — Well, hejtold me I would be able to see when I got up the stairs. You were some time pinning up your dress? — I don't know how long it was, but it wasn't very long. Where did you get the pins from?— I had them m my bag. ■ ' After lengthy argument the jury returned with a verdict for the husband, assessing the damages against the co-respondent at £250. The question of costs and the custody of the children was left over for consideration later.