AUCKLAND WAR-BRIDE FALLS: HUSBAND'S MOTHER BLAMED

NZ Truth, Issue 1043, 21 November 1925, Page 7

AUCKLAND WAR-BRIDE FALLS: HUSBAND'S MOTHER BLAMED

DENIAL OF WIFE AND CO-RE DISBELIEVED BY JURY: £200 DAMAGES GIVEN ♦ Keyhole Spies' Evidence: Wife Parted Front Child vs. ■ — . * / Again the war-time marriage, and the Home-born wife who comes, an interloper it would seem, to the home of her mother-in-law m a far land. And thus is born the seed of trouble.

The wife alleges, and the Husband denies, tHat there was' a course of conduct by which the latter threw Her into association with other men. Nevertheless, she emphatically denies (as does the co-respondent) that any misconduct occurred, though there was a mistletoe " cuddle" m the presence of the Husband.

She says that the husband formed a "David and Jonathan" association with the co-respondent Houlden, brought Houlden to the house, and placed him on terms of intimacy. Key-hole observation by private detectives was an element m the petitioner's case; and there was also a lady listener outside the alleged apartment of guilt. The defence denied the mechanical practicability of this keyhole observation. Early m the history of the couple the child of the marriage went to the mother-in-law— and stopped with her.

HEN Douglas "Johnson Coleman Avent to Europe with the Dominion Forces to "do his bit" m putting Fritz m his place, he was not much more than a boy, for although his hair is turning very grey, he claims only twenty- seven years of this wicked world's experience as his. In, the Old Country he met the woman whom later he . made his wife: m fact, he made her the Christmas^ present of his name m 1918. Three months later he left on a troopship for his home base again, his spouse following per passenger boat the September after. The matrimonial affairs of the Colemans from the time of the reunion were not those of unalloyed, loving bliss. CLAIM FOR £1500 ; This month Judge Reed, a jury, and counsel met m Auckland to sift out of a lengthy mass of evidence the pros and cons of one more marital disillusion. Coleman petitioned for a divorce from his wife Constance Eva, and, putting a high value on the wife he had imported, claimed from the corespondent the. lordly sum of £1500. Lawyers R. M.J3. Jones and Eric W Inder held the brief of the petitioner, while Counsel .Matthews defended the,- respondent and the corespondent. . Immediately after his war bride arrived m New Zealand, "Dug," as he was constantly named throughout the case, took* her to his mother's home at Hunterville. ■;■;' She stayed there three weeks, but once again it was the old story — his mother and the wife of his ■ bosom ,d.id not hit it. From there they went to Manganoho, and thence to Frankton Junction. This place may take the blame for being the scene set by Fate to finally dissolve the domestic partnership of the Coleman menage. A baby was born and when Mrs. Coleman came otit of hospital she met on the first day of her convalescence the one who (it is alleged) made the right_ angle of matrimony the eternal triangle of discord. At the time the child Avas born (petitioner Coleman told the Court), m July, 1921, Aye were very happy. Then the wife Avent into hospital for an operation, and with her consent the mother-in-laAV took the baby to her home. On the wife recovering, she took up some light work- at a Mrs. McDOAvell's boardinghouse to help along the finances of her husband. There she met Robert Houlden, who was engaged m some building operations m the district. "Who introduced you to Houlden?" asked his counsel. "My Avife." FRIENDSHIP RIPENS Not long after, when the friendship Avith Houlden had considerably ripened, they Avent to live m a house AVhich he had built, and they bought it from him. He came to live there too. "He stayed with us for fourteen months. We Avere still living happily together," said "Dug." To cut Avhat Avould be a long story a little shorter, the three of .them, for Houiden seems to have become as one of the family, eventually arrived at Auckland. "Dug." worked- for a carrying firm. His wife had a cake shop at 147 Victoria Street W., which Houlden (who had now become "Bob") had financed her into. Bob himself had a small store or business at Oneroa. He diA'ided his attention betAveen Auckland, the cake shop, and Waiheke. "Where Avas Houlden then?" queried' counsel. "He AA r as working at Wiri." "Did he come to see you?" "He came and stayed on occasional Aveek-ends. Sometimes he Avent away on Sunday nights; sometimes he stoprped till Monday. He came to live m the house m Graham Street eventually." "Did you object?" "1 did not like to kick up a fuss about it," replied the petitioner. "He brought his bed and stayed with us." In September Dug. took a job at Te KauAvhata. Avith the approval of his. Avife, it, seems. He Avas away about a month or so. and then Avent home and gave his Avife £8. He then left for To Kamvhata. "When I Avent back she wrote to me saying that she Avas going to give up the house and live m the back of the shop to save expense," he stated. Petitioner's job. at Te Kamvhata did not pan out too Avell, and m December, 1924, the sixth anniversary of his marriage, he- wrote -to his Avife that he "was going home to see his big boy, and would be back m Auckland about the New Year!" Up to this time, he told the jury, he did not doubt his Avife's affection. REFUSED TO COME He got a job at Hunterville, and from there Avrote to his Avife that he would get a home if she liked to joirc him.

To use his own words. V"she .absolutely refused to come." However, they met at Hunterville m January. She had never once asked for the ; boy She had never .asked for the boy before that. "I will not come to Hunterville to live," she said. He suggested that he could get work at Frankton at £ 4 10s a week. Tier answer was: "That's no good to me." Petitioner then said: "Now, if I come back to Frankton, I want you to give up Houlden." "No," was her answer, "I will not give up Houlden for two years, and not fhen unless you give up your people; and if you come back to Frankton, and bring the baby, he is never to see his grandmother again." "He thought this very unfair. I She and Houlden were m a contrsfct at Oneroa; it was a tea kiosk, she said, and she could not give him up. He went on to say that m January, 1925, he thought "there '.was something between Houlden and his wife." Counsel Matthews put Dug. through a lengthy and searching cross-exami-nation. "From September to December," asked Mr. Matthews, "did you go to see your wife?" "Yes, I came to see her one weekend m October." "Did you say you were going to get rid. of your wife and get a good lump of money out of Houlden?" "No, I did not," replied the petitioner. NO SUSPICION "From October to December you did not go to see your wife. Did you think she was m peril?" — "I did not." "Had you no suspicion of Houlden?" —"Not up to January. I had known him three years and had no suspicion." "How did you look upon Houlden?" — "1 always looked upon Houlden as a perfect gentleman." "You raised no objection to their intimate society?" — Petitioner admitted that he had not. "Has Houlden ever lent you any money?" — "He has lent me £100 on a second mortgage." (This was on the house at Frankton.) He had told Bolstead that Houlden had been a real friend to him. He had never discussed his wife with anyone. This he amended to "not with anyone at the camp." "Did you not say," pursued counsel, "that you would get the child; another woman, and a lump of money on top of' it?"— "No!" "Were you staying with a Mrs. Ryan — at any time? Have you been m the house asleep or awake?"— This was also denied. He had been swimming or bathing with hex', but with a party of eight, and he certainly had not been 'around the corner with her. __ He denied that he had asked Houlden to come and live with them, or had fetched his clothes to his house when Houlden was m hospital at Frankton. "Didn't you say," hammered away Mr. Matthews, "'Bob, don't make it too hot with the wife' ?" — "I never said it," he replied. The name of a man called Tuke cropped up, who had also been a boarder at the hotise of this unsophisticated young man at Frankton. Dug had gone away for ten days, and left the two alone together, but Tuke had slept m a room outside. "I was not suspicious of my wife," He stated. "I knew she was trustworthy. I had no knowledge of my own to think otherwise." His first suspicions had arisen m January when she came to see him. "Who drew up the letter of January 26 for you?" went on counsel, "what firm or what lawyer " 808 IS FIRST The witness denied that any legal men had had a hand m it, and he appealed to the Judge to know if he must answer. His Honor simply said "Tell him." It seems that a Constable Thompson had been the one to whom petitioner had gone for assistance. On December 9 he wrote a letter to his wife m which he stated: "When Bob is home he's first. I take second place. Don't think I am a fool." Petitioner admitted that there was no real necessity to take the country job, but he thought it would be better money,, and he was not saving m Auckland, though there was only himself and wife to kee*p, and she was working at the cake shop. Counsel suggested that he had looked upon money as being of more importance than being at home with his wife. In a letter, read by her counsel, .. which the wife wrote to her Dug.,' V she said: "A customer told my fortune, and she says I want a good kind man to look after me." "Do you still value her at' £1500?" Inquired the persistent cross-examiner. "Yes, I do." ' "You valued her at that, and yet this was the woman you left m peril," commented the lawyer. Questioned as to the feeling between his mother and his wife, he admitted that they never 1 hit it off, but said that his mother '.'always treated her with respect!" :

Petitioner's letters had up to early m the year been couched m reasonably affectionate terms, but when his wife suggested coming to him about the end of February, he replied with a letter signed "yours truly." The next day he set a private inquiry agent to work. COME BACK TO ME Another letter was sent him by the wife, containing the following: "Come back to mo with baby. I am tired of being on my own, and have had seven months, of it now.. "I shall proceed with the case to claim the baby. Any .fudge hearing the case would give me the child. . . . "I am working at the shop fourteen hours a day. I am desperate. You left it to a stranger to isee me on the train. ... I wonder what the- baby will think when he grows up and asks how ,__, you treated his mother." '" ' She was going into hospital 'then. But no reply came. .':■'. Extracts " from another letter were read to petitioner: ..:.... . "You are the only relative I have m New Zealand. I would like to know that I am not a complete outcast from your thoughts. . . . I am asking you to do me a kindness; it may be the last." Still he did not reply. Whether' the operation was of a very serious nature or not, counsel pointed out, a woman is always somewhat strung up at that time. Questioned as to whether the health of his wife subsequent to the birth of the baby had anything to do with his neglect,, or his lack of enthusiasm for her company; he denied that that had. m any way influenced him. "Her condition had nothing to do Avith my not coming to see her." KEYHOLE SLEUTHS Counsel for petitioner then placed m the box the private .inquiry- agent who had been put on the job of procuring something tangible against this war bride. This investigator of conjugal unfaithfulness said that he was instructed to watch Mrs. Coleman m March. She was then the proprietress of a small cake shop m Victoria Street West. On .the night of March. 5, with an assistant, he watched . the shop. They saw *both Mrs. Coleman and Houlden there. At nine p.m. the shop was closed, and the shop light put out. The one m the back portion kept on. The two investigators went around to the back of the shop and heard talking there. They watched the place from across the road, and later went again to the back, and could still hear the talking. About 10.30 p.m.' the light went out. The talking continued. Having waited till midnight without seeing anyone, come out, they left. Learning that the business was for sale before the following evening, these two went to 147 and made inquiries as to the sale of the business from Mrs. Coleman herself. She said she wanted £150 for it. They asked What accommodation there was, and she replied: "Come and have a look." "We went into the back room, m which was a table, chairs, and a three-quarter bed. The latter was m a corner near the door. "Houlden was sitting on the side of the bed with his coat and hat off. He said they would sell the business for £150; it was really worth £175, but they wanted to make a quick sale." Having . promised to return next morning, the two inquiry agents retired, and. continued to watch from acrdss the road. After 10 p.m., when the shop had closed, they went round to the back, and the two inside, they alleged, could be heard discussing the probable sale of the business. The inquirer-in -chief stated that he heard Mrs. Coleman. say: "We will be able to add to the business at Oneroa; there is not much m this." . ... • ENTER MRS. RYAN According to the same witness: "At half-past eleven the light was put out, and the -shop was m • darkness. We again went around to the back, and could still hear talking. Mrs. Rj'an was waiting outside, and I called her m. ... Prior to the. light being put out we could see them preparing to retire." In answer to a question from the Judge, as to what and how they could see,, witness replied: "We could see Houlden sitting on the side of the bed. taking his clothes off. We saw through the * keyhole." Counsel Matthews: "Was Mrs.'Coleman quite frank about it when you called to ask about the sale?" — "Yes, she was quite frank." • "Was there any attempt at concealment when you called on the 6th?"— "None at all." "How did you get m touch with Mrs. Ryan?" — "From the instructing solicitors." ' . - "You were led to believe that she was a favorable witness "—"Yes." "Did Mrs. Ryan tell you that the door m the passage was unlocked?" — "I knew it from my own knowledge." To his knowledge there was only one door m the passage. ., He also Stated that the back door,, the one through which he looked, opened away from the bed. , "( It was also explained that Mrs. Ryan was there quite accidentally. She was waiting for'her daughter. She denied herself the pleasure of looking^through the keyhole. She wasn't even invited. "She didn't want to come m the yard at alt, really. 1 ; * The next witness was the Mrs. Ryan referred to— Mrs. Violet Ryan. Mrs.

Coleman had lived .with the lady .at her house m 26 Graham Street, and later Mrs. Ryan , had worked for Mrs. Coleman at the shop. "MORE TIME" FOR 808. Mrs. Coleman had told her that she had more time for .Houlden than she had for her husband; and that she" went to bed while Bob cleaned the room. . : Mrs. Coleman had also told the witness that, she went down to Surfilale at the week-ends and stayed with Bob. Mrs. Coleman stayed under the roof of the witness for about nine weeks. Houlden and the two Colemans all Jived m the Graham Street house, and when Coleman went to the country job Bob .still stayed there. ■ Asked if she had ever seen anything familiar between the two she replied: "When they were skylarking she would call him 'dear,' and he used to cuddle her a bit." "You felt out of it?" asked Mr. Jones. ' ' "You bet." Mrs. Coleman made some interjection with some heat, but her counsel hastily admonished her to keep quiet. Witness was accidentally waiting for her daughter when the inquiry agent asked her to come found to the back of the shop. She went on to say that Houlden used to buy clothes for Mrs. Coleman. "While I was at the shop he bought her some blouses, shoes, and furniture for the shop, and tumblers and lots of things." The investigator's right bower mad*, his appearance now.' He stated that his chief had gone round to get Mrs. Ryan (or Turner) while lie watched at the back door. He also did his share of keyhole peering, and gave details. i "You've looked through key* holes before?" asked Mr. Matthews. "Yes, of course." Agnes Barfoot.was next called by the petitioner's counsel. With her husband she had lived at 147 Victoria Street during November last. Witness told of finding Mrs. Coleman washing herself m her shop. "I said to her: 'Why don't you use the bath upstairs ' She said „ she didn't like the woman upstairs. '' "ONLY A FANCY" "Mr. Houlden called to her from the shop to get finished quickly. There was a little archway dividing the front of the shop from the. back, but no curtain or door. Mrs. Coleman asked him to cut a loaf m two, as I. wanted some bread. Houlden, having cut the loaf m two, handed it through the doorway to me." The lady of the bath was m full view of Bob. She called him Bob. Witness went on to say that she thought that Houlden was the husband. She had often seen Bob washing himself at the tubs m the backyard where she washed the clothes, at seven m the morning. . , It seems that curiosity had impelled this witness to ask who Bob was, and "the lady upstairs -told me he was only a 'fancy.' " Frequently this witness turned towards Houldeu, who was sitting across the Court, with the query: "Isn't Chat so?" One morning Mrs. Barfoot found Bob washing at the tub after what had been a thick night, and he explained that he had only been having a "hogmanay." Counsel Jones made some observations about such a festival m March, and m explanation remarked; "I'm not Scotch." "I'm glad to say I am," retorted witness, with a toss of her head. She had also worked for the respondent, and had been down to Oneroa with them. The room at the. back of the Oneroa shop she described; she had slept m it with Mrs. (Coleman. VARYING VERSIONS Having been to see Mr."' Matthews' law clerk, with Mr. Coleman, the witness made a -statement, which was not, however; signed. The text of this was not m accordance with, the evidence which she gave as a witness for the petitioner. . The statement was read by Mr. Matthews. Pressed as to her memory of the statements, she said: "I haven't a good memory for anything untrue I may have said." Counsel asked if it was not a fact that at' a certain time she had. slept every night with the respondent. - "Good gracious, no! I'd ma husband to go home and sleep wi'."' Neither had she said that Mrs. Coleman was m such a. state of health as not to be intimate, with • anyone. She had not said that there had : never been any opportunity for adultery while she had been at the shop. "Bob is to give you a brooch if^ you shut your mouth," Mrs. Coleman had told her. Witness said a brooch, would cut friendship, and Mrs. Coleman then said: "We must not give you that; we will . give you something else." When re-examined by Mr. Jones, she repeated this, 1 but added, "And since. then I've received a little handbag." In opening the case for the defence, Counsel Matthews made a strong, appeal to the jury. He asked if there was not the. lure of money involved; , KEYHOLE EVIDENCE ATTACKED. The evidence of Selwyn Clemens Clark was given as to! the possible inaccuracy of the private inquiry agents' evidence. Mr. Clark had made his examination during the luncheon interval., Hi's ..evidence was ,to the effect that .the door to the back room of the shop from the yard opens from the right to the. left. It is extremely l hard to get the eye anywhere near the ■keyhole, owing to the handle of the door and the lintel both standing out.

The range of view is extremely small, and if the bed was where stated no view of it could be obtained. There are two doors m the passage way — one on the street and one at the yard end. He also gave evidence as to the I visit of Mrs. Barfoot to Mr. Matthews' I office, and the statements she "had made on that occasion. "All the statements she made relating to Mrs. Coleman were contrary to what she said to me." Constance Eva Coleman then stepped into the box. She is a pleasantfeatured, well-set-up woman. She told the Court thaj; the wooing: was short, and that not very long after the wedding her "Dug" left her to return home. Ten months after she followed. "Dug" met her at Auckland. He told her then that he did not think that his mother would like her, being a war bride. ■. He also told her that his mother would always take first place m his affections. "I lived with his people for three weeks," said Mrs. Coleman. "VERY GOOD WOMAN." "His mother," she added, "is a verygood woman, but we did not agree. We were not happy at Pukeore because of his mother's influence." They went to Manganoho, and later to Frankton. At Frankton the child was born — prematurely. When she came out of hospital her husband was away, she said, so she went to Mrs. McDougall's boai'dinghouse, which was near, to lend a hand, as much for companionship as anything. There she met Houlden. Not long after, her husband was introduced to him. "How did.' your husband and Houlden get on?" asked counsel. "There was a sort of David and Jonathan relationship between them," was the answer. "Every .time my husband came m from the camp he brought Mr. Houlden to tea." Houlden went to a hospital. After he came out her husband induced him to come and live with them. Houlden stayed with them about fourteen months. They had bought the house from him, and they paid the rent by boarding him. Meanwhile, he was waiting for the money he had put into the house to come from the Government. When the money came Houlden got busy again. "What sort of terms were you on?" was put to witness. "We were very intimate— the three of us. It was at my husband's request that Houlden called me 'Con.' So far as 1 am concerned, the friendship has continued to the "present day." When he went to Wiri, Houlden, she said, wrote to them. ■ ' "Did you get any letters from him?" — "I don't think I had four letters from Mr. Houlden, and those were addressed to both of us>" The husband also brought along a Mr. Tuke, a married man, who boarded with them. v c "When, your husband went to Pukeore, « did he ask you to come too " "It was a sort of 'come if you like' invitation; but I knew I was riot welcome." It seems that the respondent went into hospital again, for it was when she came out after another operation, and the baby was four months' old, that it was taken to its grandmother. BARRED FROM SEEING CHILD. His Honor asked: "Have you seen the child since?"— "l have seen the child once. 1 have been twice to see him but they have refused to let me see him." A juror here inquired: "Who refused you?"— My husband." It further transpired that the husband would not bring the child to see his mother m April of this year just before her last operation. When the husband went away for ten days he, so witness swore, said to Tuke, "Oh, Jim, you don't mind looking after the missus while I am away." . When the Fleet Came to Auckland, Mrs. Coleman wanted to go. "H& promised to come to Auckland with me, when I came to see the Fleet, but he changed his mind. "He said he'd see to accommodation for me, but he did not do so, and at the last moment he said, 'never mind, Bob will see to it for you." So It was left to Bob, who did secuve the wife lodging. It was then that she looked forva small business to start, m Auckland. "When I got out of the train (on her return from Auckland) 'Dug*' was there to meet -me. He said he hiid work m Auckland, and that he had let the house. , ' In regard to the trip, to -Auckland "he suggested .that Bob should do everything that a husband should for his wife." MISCONDUCT DENIED. Bob, it appeal's, had made a standing offer to start either the husband or wife m a business, and~ "Dug" had made no objection to the proposed loan for the cake^shop. The friendship between the two men continued until "Dug" went to Te Kauwhata. , "Have you ever conducted yourself m an improper manner with Houlden?" asked Mr. Matthews. "No," was the most emphatic reply. "What reason did petitioner give for taking this Te Kauwhata .. job." — "Money!" The respondent went to Hunterville m Janvfary, the unlucky thirteenth. Constable Thompson was present, at the interview. "I had an interview with him, and my husband did so too, then we had 'a joint interview." She denied that she said she could not leave Houlden. "I could not leave him because he was never mine to leave. Had I said J_ would not leave Bob, Constable ihompson would have heard it." "My husband had gone dowri times without number to get the. boy, but had returnedN without him.. Mj' husband said, to one: 'You will never get him! You need not worry— you will never set him." "When I met him at Hunteryille he said, 'What do you want?' His attitude was not friendly. He did not say he had a place for nic to come to. He said "If you care to come- I'll 'find somewhere for you to stay.' He said 'You can't have the baby and you can't see him." v DOES SHE WANT HIM ? Do you want your child?" asl^ed counsel. — "Show him to me and you will see," was the answer. . Then, and only then, did the witness break down, m tears. Witness went on to say that' lhe husband offered to take work at Frankton, to which she agreed on condition that he did not bring his people to the house any more, as they always r'caused trouble. Ttts reply was that "the home was more for his, people than for his wife." .■• ••■■: ■■..-■■• They parted, the 'position being one of stalemate. In answer to her counsel, she replied: -•■ . -. : '■; , v

"I say that the evidence that, has been given about familiarity between Houlden and me m a fabrication from beginning to end. "I have never slept with him. I have never been guilty of adultery with Mr. Houlden.: He has never made love to me. I would not marry Mr. Houlden if I wa& divorced." Witness then' went on to give some particulars of her physical health. The two nights when it was alleged that Houlden slept at the shop she swore Mrs. Barfoot slept there. So far as Oneroa was concerned, she had never alept there unless there, was a man sleeping with Houlden or a woman sleeping with her. Nothing very fresh was "elicited under cross-examination by Mr. Jones, except that the business had been sold at a loss for £100, and it had been purchased with the husband's full^cpn-,. sent. That her husband 'was" a 'good """' and hard worker she did not deny. He worked on an adjoining section' at Frankton by electric light. Houlden helped wash up the dishes. - 1 - "Did Houlden work on- the section?" Mr. Jones inquired.— "No, ; he's not a laborer." . . '■■'■ .'.■'••• Asked how she remembered the dates of the sth and 6th .^garch so well she retorted: "You don't get.accused with adultery every day of the'week." "The private detectives are both wrong then?"— "Yes^ ! It's all .lies. They're paid to come, aren't they?" UNDER THE MISTLETOE. "Astonishing, isn't it?" suggested counsel. — "It is!" sharply answered the respondent. "Did Houlden ever kiss or cuddle you?" pursued Mr. Jones. — "Yes, once under the mistletoe at Frankton, when my husband was present." . : His Honor seemed interested ami said ho thought that the sub-kissing berry did not grow m Now Zealand. Mr. lnder pointed out that there was a species of plant termed mistletoe m the Dominion, but this proved to bu artificial. \ ■ ■- -. Answering several questions' put her by Judge Reed, she denied that Houlden was at the shop .late on the night of March f> or G. The sleuths were' both telling lies, and Mrs. Barfoot's . story of the loaf of bread, was untrue. . Until last Tuesday she had thought Mrs. Barfoot her friend. "I can only suggest that the reason they come herg and tell thass stories is that they desire my hus.band's friendship more than mine." Respondent was m the box for about an hour. Towards the end of the second clay of '- the" case the corespondent Robert Houlden went into the witness-box. The co-respondent is. an iron grey man of probably nearly fifty years clean shaven. (He went early to the war and fought on Gallipoli.) NEVER GUILTY, Houlden described himself as a. single man, and a builder by trade. As to the allegations of adultery or impropriety of liny kind, he said it was "absolutely falseT" . "I have never at any time been guilty of any undue familiarity ■with Mrs. Coleman and I have never been m love with Mrs. Coleman." ; . - Further questioned, he l-eplied: "Any familiarity of any kind is m- ;, eluded m my denial." ■:. The section ;it Oneroa. hud bee"" n. V speculation; he had .built the. slu-ip there with the intention of 'running ; -it himself or selling it.- f neyer had any intention of Belling the shop to anyone but- Mrs. Coleman. Mrs. Colemii.ii never, \qume to Oiiercia alone. ■ .. . How the meeting between ' M;>; . Coleman and himself came to pass he.:went on to relate: "I was m the bathroom when Mrs. McDowell called nits -i ;: into the kitchen and there she intro- ? ; duced me to Mrs. Coleman.' Four „ days later Mrs. McDowell introduced ; . me to Coleman, who was on an ad- '.- joining section putting up a cow - bail." ■•'•■"• ■ © ■ Coleman was emphatic about hiff staying at Coleman's house, but thtj ,' co-respondent' stated: "I- would not consent to come' and stay at his*- pi-ice until he himself came \in from the . country." " ' ... - ■■' " Then Coleman would come round to the boarding-house, every Sunday r.ight and ask' him (witness) to come over" to""'' tea. He would say to Coleman: "What. would the. crowd. say-?- You Jcnowv/hat men are."' ' " " *'"" ." '■■*■'■"'" *•**■"■-: ~ ~ "I would not go . and live there because Coleman was living m the country," added Houlden; : . Coleman still owes Hduld'en £100 .:„ second mortgage on the house at;:. Frankton. Co-respondent admitted ;-' that he had riot built a house under *' similar conditions for friends whom*' he had. only known a few months. „ When Mrs. Coleman went up to \ : Auckland she called for, him at Wiri. ■■■• They went on to the city together, and •■- ---he took her to a boardirighouse; then '■■'- they had tea m town. 11. As to the allegations about the hap- . ; penings at the shop m town, he used ' to have meals with the respondent, but he never had breakfast as early as seven m the morning. If Mrs. Coleman was not up when he knocked, he would wait, or go for a walk until she was. . . ' ■; . "THIS WORM," It was late m the afternoon that the ' evidence concluded, . and both coun3sl proceeded to address the jury. Mr. Matthews said that he. would have thought, far more of the petitioner if he had not claimed such . heavy damages. . During the address of counsel Jonesto the' jury an incident occ.urred which broke the monotony of the proceedings for a few brief moments. Counsel deferred to the corespondent as "this worm!" Houlden spr.ang to. his feet with ; an exclamation, and made as though to come to close quarters with the lawyer. ' ; Several of the jurors also sprang to their feet, and for a second or two things were tense. Then ' Mr. Matthews came into the breach and managed to;, persuade the offended man to sit down. The jury retired about. 5' p.m. and it was nearly half -past eight when they returned to the Court with a verdict for the petitioner. They found, that misconduct had been committed, andjthe petitioner was awarded £200 against the coresppndent. On the instruction of * the Judge this will be placed m the hands of the Public Trustee to be» : • invested on behalf of the child. During the case some suggestion was made that the jury should have a view through the keyhole used by the private inquiry agents; Several members of the jury, m fact said that they thought it necessary m the interests of justice. However, the majority finalry decided to the contrary; and, thougij the Auckland dailies stated that such was done, the repoi't was erroneous. ; It is a -pity that the jury, did not see the key-hole and the room for themselves. ; ' ... ..• ' ... ■■; .-'-. ".' _■ ...■•.■' .-.. ."_■ ■ r ■■