The Shorn Lamb: A Biting Blast

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

The Shorn Lamb: A Biting Blast

Only £1500 for a Wife"Excessive," Says Go-respondent's Counsel— "Shares," Cries the Lady Pink Time m Blue Mountains— r A Flat at Coogee— -"Quite Natural that I Should Fall m Love With Him"— "Somehow or Other, I Almost Hate You"— Was Husband Indifferent? ■ . — ' i .'■""' "I met Lamb at the races at Palmerston North, and since then until now I have loved Jim, and somehow or other I almost hate you. 1 am quite sure that you will agree with me that our natures do not go together, and so, when Jim Lamb came along, it was quite natural that 1 should fall m love with him." '

The letter containing the above was signed "Your disappointed and brokenhearted wife." It was one of the most important letters read m a divorce action m Christchurch, m which there was a claim for £3000 for damages by the petitioner, Daniel -Tranter, a motor mechanic, of Christchurch. The corespondent, James Lamb, was the licensee of the United Service ' Hotel, Christchurch, but is now licensee of the University Hotel, Sydney. Daniel Tranter reckoned the loss of his wife was worth the sum claimed, but the jury placed damages at half the amount. He asked the Court for divorce from his wife Lucy Tranter on the ground of adultery, naming James Lamb as co-respondent. Mr. Justice Adams presided. Mr. Frank Sargent appeared for petitioner, Mr. C. S. Thomas for Lucy (who did not defend the action), and Mr. A. T.

(Who became Prime Minister between the death of Mr. Massey and the election of the, 'new Reform leader, Mr. Gordon Coates). Plain without pomp, and rich without a show. — Dryclen. V

Donnelly for co-respondent, who filed, a defence. THE GAMBOLS OF LAMB. Mr. Sargent said that; the parties were married m 1917, and had one child. Tranter first knew Lamb m 1921, and Lamb frequently visited Tranter's house. They soon became fast friends, and petitioner had no suspicion of anything wrong, and had every confidence m Lamb. In December, 1921, he took a holiday m Dunedin at his wife's request, and heard there that Lamb was frequenting- his house under suspicious circumstances. Tranter noticed that his wife had, changed towards him early the next year, and she insisted on going out to parties, leaving Tranter at home to mind the child. Early m 1923, Mrs. Tranter said she would go her own way, . and she .insisted on getting a separation order. She gave petitioner custody of the boy, and said she Avas going to Australia. This was early, m 1923, and Lamb had gone to Sydney about Christmas of 1922. Tranter received a letter from Lamb* stating that Lamb had heard Mrs. i Tranter was going to Australia, but had not seen her. It was found, however, that a marconigram had been sent to "Miss Tranter" on . the s.s. Ulimaroa. It was signed. "Jim," and said she would be met at Sydney. Petitioner received a letter from his wife saying that when Lamb sold the hotel m Christchurch he gave her money to go to Sydney. She told of Lamb buying her a business m Sydney, but he made her sell it as they could not go out enough. The letter also, said that Lamb' took her to the Blue Mountains and they had a fiat at Coogee. , "YOUR LONELY DARLING BOY ' JIM." ' Additional to that confession (said counsel) there were letters from Lamb to respondent. One was signed "Best and fondest love for your dear self> and trusting to see you again soon, with heaps, of cuddles and ; kisses, your dear Jim." Another, was signed "From your lonely darling boy Jim," and ended with about five lines of kisses— or, as Mr. Sargent put it, "a tremendous number of crosses such, as one would expect fr'pm a, lovesick swain." Speaking on the question of damages counsel said that damages of this character were not punitive but by way of compensation to petitioner. Under the circumstances, the claim of £3000 was an extremely moderate one. He remarked on the injury that had been done to petitioner's family honor, and on the treacherous circumstances under which his wife was seduced and taken away from home. : . . Petitioner gave evidence on fhe lines of counsel's address. He said that respondent insisted , ' on a separation to enable her to go to Sydney. She did not want any maintenance. She left Christchurch m April, 1923. ■'-... His Honor ruled that; the marconigram spoken, of was not admissible as evidence, and Mr. Sargent withdrew it. Witness was then shown snapshot's alleged 'to have been taken m Australia. They were photographs of a man and a woman with their arms around each other. Witness stated that they' were his wife and Lamb. ■ Mr. Donnelly: Isn't it a fact. that, you had trouble with your wife and other men than Lamb? — Well,, a . little, t Isn't it a fact that you have picked up your wife coming out of business premises with men, other than Lamb, at three o'clock m the morning?— No, two o'clock on one occasion. ' What did you do about that ?-^Oh, she went home shortly after that. . WAS. THERE AFFECTION?— : "OTHER MEN." - ; ' .Continuing, Mr. Donnelly asked: You knew your, wife had been going out with other men than Lamb? — With the man you are* referring to, only once or twice. '.'■': ' .: ;;;. ■;■'.'". . ; ' '

At that time you had no suspicion of' Lamb?— No. It wasn't right she should act the way she was. When you found her, what did you do about it? — 'She said she was coming" home from a dance, and they ran out of petrol, so they went there to get some. How did \ you find out?— She rang up, and I rang; the exchange to find out where she rang from, and then went down. Why did you put up with that? — If I said anything there 'would be argument, and I thought the least said the soonest mended. . . '■ Did you care twopence whether she went to Sydney or not? — I didn't want her to go. There was- no affection between her and you, was there?— Well, I would sooner she had stayed. Do you 'say there was any real affection between you? — Yes. What did you expect was going 1 to happen to a woman under thirty who" had been a barmaid, who had been. • knocking about night after night, and. who was going to Sydney with only £30? — I don't know. Didn't you think she would go" wrong ?— lt never crossed 'my mind. . When she, went to, Sydney did you suspect Lamb?- — it was not until then that people told me. ;. Witness continued that he knew what would happen when he heard that., his wife was m Sydney with Lamb. He never Avorried his head about her ; ; after she was gone. ' ' VALUE AS A WIFE. \ Witness, further cross-examined, said he did not supply her with any money % He did not know how his wife came to make the confessions and statements. , . . . Mr. Donnelly: This is a pretty large figure you are claiming, £3000. How did you assess that? — If she had been here I would have been as well off as that. • Isn't it a fact that you are trying to, repair losses m,- speculation by getting-, money from Lamb for the misconduct of your wife? — -No answer. |, Isn't it a fact that you are here for money and nothing else? — I suppose it amounts to that. i And you are prepared to make that money out of the dishonor of your wife?— Petitioner mumbled an answer. A,t this stage Mr. Donnelly said that the adultery was admitted; and the question was solely that of damages. Mr. Sargent said that, m view of this, it was not necessary 'to call further evidence. . v

Mr. Donnelly called no evidence. Addressing the jury, he said he had nothing: to say m mitigation of Lamb's conduct. In assessing damages, the jury had to consider the value of the wife as manager of the house and wife and mother. Petitioner married a loose, flighty woman, and he did not have enough strength to put his foot down to manage her. Tranter was trying to make' money out of his wife's dishonor, but Avas not entitled to repair m this way results of speculations The woman's value as a wife and mother was precious small. Lamb was not the only man she had been with, .and she was obviously loose. It was not a case of seducing a virtuous woman. "I have never seen a man come •to Court even under the grossest circumstances asking for such amount as, damages.". The jury was out for half an hour,, and returned with a verdict m favor of petitioner, and granting, him £1500 damages. V Mr. Donnelly moved for a new trial on the ground that the damages are' excessive. , , A decree nisi was granted. Mr. Thomas asked that tima.be. given for an application from the wife* that a certain amount of the damages be allocated to her. ; '. This, and the question of costs, werer reserved. The petitioner gets the custody of" the child. . , -