Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image

Richard Joseph Keogh against Eileen i Francis May Keogh. Joseph Skinner was ,"ei tea as the co-respondent, .According fo^the petitioner, the parties were married m March, 1925. There were no children and they sepa- • rated m, November, 1926, under, an agreement. The petitioner had paid maintenance money regularly until last j July- . . j , The reason for cessation of maintenance payments, he said, ■was" because of a mature familiarity between his wife and the co-resppndent, Skinner. Petitioner followed them to the Duke Street gardens one "night and had some words with Skinner. The respondent's own^ mother, Mrs. Therese Loughrey, gave evidence to the effect that after, the separation her daughter stayed with her. In August the respondent said she was going to a dance with Skinner. Sho attended the N dance, but did not put m an appearance until noon the following day. Her excuae was that she had gone to a party later and found it too late to get home. Subsequently, however, she admitted that she had been with Skinner. ' Just after this admission, she left her mother's house. Henry "Walter Winter, a bailiff;, said ] Jie had interviewed the co-respondent m September and although he was reticent about speaking m fr.ont of Keogh, he made an appointment with witness and eventually admitted that he had stayed the night at a city hotel with the respondent. \ His honor asked if more evidence could not be secured. Mere admissions made to a woman who was the mother of the respondent and to a paid private detective were npt satisfactory. "Surely/ he said, "you can get some more evidence. Otherwise, the case, like any other such case, may be fictitious . . . .an illusive divorce . . ,'.' It only meant that a party could say: ' '1 admit that I committed misconduct" and the whole thing was illusive. However, a solicitor's cle,rk deposed to perusing the hotel register relating to the night 1n question. There w.ere a "Mr. and Mrs. Skinner" there. A decree nisi was granted, costs being one of the joys reserved for th© co-respondent,- Skinner.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTR19271117.2.28.4

Bibliographic details

NZ Truth, Issue 1146, 17 November 1927, Page 9

Word Count
341

Untitled NZ Truth, Issue 1146, 17 November 1927, Page 9

Untitled NZ Truth, Issue 1146, 17 November 1927, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert