CASE AGAINST WEALTHY BREEDER AS CO-RE WITHDRAWN

NZ Truth, Issue 1151, 22 December 1927, Page 5

CA SE AGAINST WEALTHY BREEDER AS CO-RE WITHDRAWN

•THE petitioner was Felix Stuart X Hindmarsh Bolton, farmer, of Pahiatua, well known throughout the district, a keen rifle shot (he re-, presented N.Z. m Australia a few years ago) and secretary of the local olub.: He set out m his petition,. that at St. Paul's Pro-Cathedral, .Wellington, on July 3, 1920, he married Eileen Margaret Shute. After the nuptials they lived happily together at their home at Mangatainoka and two bonnie girls had been born. The first mistake, according to Felix, was when he taught his wife to drive a. car and she was able to get about by herself. She went and came home again at her pleasure and he never interfered, but one morning at breakfast—it was m May of 1926— she suddenly shattered the calm of the dovecote with the avowal that she loved another man. "I might as well tell you now that I'm not coming back," she said. "Who is the other man I asked?" said petitioner, "and my wife replied 'Jack Hewitt'." She said she was m a certain condition to him. John Edward Hewitt, to give him his full title, was cited by petitioner as corespondent and the man who had led Mrs. Bolton astray. Hewitt is a farmer and stud breeder at Mangamaire, 12 miles from the Bolton homestead, and a member of the committee of the Pahiatua Club to which Bolton was secretary. It was said that on the day

Helped Her Pack

of the Bolton wedding they received a telegram from him wishing them every happiness. That, according to respondent, was the first time she had heard the name of Jack Hewitt. Resuming his Story, the petitioner said": "I was so taken aback I could not reply" after his wife hud announced her love for Hewitt. He asked her what she was going to do as Hewitt was a married man with a family. Personally, he was going to get a divorce. Eileen had replied: "As soon aa Mrs. Hewitt knows of this she -will s^t a divorce and then Hewitt will marry me." Petitioner told the jury that 'his wife had been preparing for a visit to Wellington so he helped her pack up and get away. She didn't ask him for her fare to Wellington although he. was quite prepared for that request. Bolton then discovered quite a lot of things. He found that she had been to the charity ball at Hastings with Hewitt without his knowledge; that on three occasions the two had exchanged more than confidences at the Pahiatua recreation ground; that she and Hewitt used to go for long motor drives together and sometimes at night; and further, that Mrs. Hewitt, co-respondent's wife, knew nothing about what was going on. He also found that his wife had sent to a Mrs. Eilers, a friend of hers, a letter of confession. This letter Lawyer One-ley, Bolton's counsel, read to the court. "My Dear Maud, — Just a line to say I told F. this morning everything. He was furious and said he was going to divorce me. It was the right thing to do, of course. I feel terribly upset and miserable, I can't write. If only I had you near me. It's awful, Maud. Don't

ever forget me and write me c/o Sayes Court, Wellington. I am going to .write to Jack now. I can't wait till next week. Even if there are people m the house I can't help it. It seems cruel to go away and leave two poor little innocent kiddiea, but I expect they will soon forget their mother." Then on top of that came a second letter written by his wife to his mother, Mrs. Bolton, senr. In that letter she stated: "How dare you sympathize with my sister and mother. It's me you ought to be sorry for; the way I have been treated by Mr. Hewitt and Felix. One is a coward and a rotter and the other is a fool with no brains. He knew and must have seen what was going on between us. The trouble is he only knows one side of life. He certainly does not know human nature. And lor you to write and say you are looking for a nice elderly woman to look after my children. Oh, I can't bear it. Felix shall not have them.. I will come and steal them if I can't get them any other way. The whole thing is a terrible, terrible tragredy. I am nearly out of my mind. And my little girls. I love them and they need a mother and of course they are not old enough to understand yet. Mr. H. is cruel to come into my life like he has and wreck ■ my home. I am broken -heartsd. It is so dreadful for my little children. I feel for them more than anyone. This is a very dis- ' jointed letter, but I can't help it. — Eileen." "What more natural than that Felix should now ransack his wife's bedroom for further evidence. Under a paper m a drawer was a letter which he swore was m Hewitt's handwriting. There was also a dance programme from the charity ball. Both these finds Felix exhibited m court, but more importance was attached to the letter — m fact, it played a rather im.portant part afterwards m the dismissal of the co-respondent from the suit. "Eileen dearest, — Please don't write to me or try and make me see you any more. I told someone I took you to that dance m Hastings and it has upset her so dreadfully that it has made her ill. I have been thinking things over since I got back and we must not see one another agnin. It will only mean dreadful unhappiness for such lots of others. You know we both have others we ought to think of. I don't know how I am going; to do it, but I simply must not see you any more. Please do not make it harder for me than it is. 1 know you cared for :ne 'dear, but you did not care enough to give up seeing those awful men

"How Could You?"

and taking spots when I asked you I not to. It was a dreadful shock to me when you told me you went to that dance m Palmerston, but the worst was when I found you ha<l let that man whom you had only met once, give y6u his address and that you had kept it. Oh, how could you? If you ever cared for me at all give it up. You know I told you it is bound to get you down m the end and it would make me a thousand times more miserable than I am if anything like that happened to you. I know I can never forget you, but oh, I have got to try. Remember we have both got our kiddies besides ! others belonging to us. Do give up all those dreadful men. You know you promised me you would, but you didn't keep your promise. You must know yourself they don't do you any good. Please burn that photo I gave you. Someone is so dreadfully upset about me going to the dance with you that I am afraid to think what it would make her like if she itnew I had given it to you. I simply ITIUSt Say good-bye to you dear. You know I care for you dreadfully, but I musn't see you a^ain, so please help me by doing what I ask. Good-bye." Then on top of all came the following supplication from his wife after he had started the divorce proceedings: Wellington, August 20, 1927: "Dear Felix, — You may be surprised to hear from me, but I feel that I must write to you and whether you will consider this letter or not, I want you to feel that it is from me to you and to treat it as cqnfi&ential. I have felt very sorry for you and how miserable you must be, but you don't know what I have been through these last few months. I have never kept anything from you, although T know I have done wrong and perhaps on many occasions have been thoughtless towards you, but it was never meant. I was just carried away by flattery of a false friend who was the first person who enticed me away from my home. You may say I need not have gone, but I must have been easily influenced and although you never objected outwardly you must have hated me for being so. selfish, when I had you and darling little Winkie and Bubie to keep me company. We all make mistakes m our lives and this one has taught me a lesson which will be lasting. -The happiness of our little girls is at stake and that ought to be our first thought. Will you forgive me and let me prove to you what a real wife and mother I can be? My conduct of the last year was really not my better self, but it was the associations that came into my life and the excitement which I . thought* so wonderful. But it was false. Forgive me, Felix, and don't think too badly of your wife and mother of your children. — Eileen." Felix remained adamant. What was his wife worth to him? That was the next question petitioner had to decide. How long ho took to vcsolve upon £5000 Felix never toid the court, but what the jury did find out was that he was very bitter about the whole affair. "When a man who professes to

be a friend of the family— a wealthy man old enough to be her fathei — comes and seduces my wife I think I should put m a pretty fair claim." "I see," commented respondent's counsel, when Felix had made this announcement, "making money out of your wife's downfall." Bolton did not answer. Counsel: Didn't you write Miss Rona Shute (respondent's sister) and tell her you were going to give Hewitt a shock with the damages you were going to ask for; that co-respondent was going to get short shrift as he was the most unpopular man m the district? Petitioner: Yes. He is the most unpopular man. When Mrs. Bolton found that her husband had what she considered, a heart of stone, she set about letting him know what she thought about him. He had been a husband m name only; had taken her once only to a picture show m the seven years that she was married and about twice to a theatre. He had never gone out riding with her and seemed to spend most of his time m the kitchen fiddling with the electric stove telling her she didn't know much about it until one day her mother told him to get out of it. He was continually interfering with the cooking. He had continually neglected her .and on one occasion when she had come home late at night wet through, he thought more of rushing out and jacking up the car to examine a broken spring than of her condition.

Knight of Bath?

She answered his charge of misconduct with a lengthy statement of habits of his that she said drove her into the arms of the sympathetic Jack. She alleged: That he had always known and approved of every occasion on which she and co-respondent met; that petitioner allowed and approved of her going to Hastings, Dannevirke, and Wellington to meet Hewitt; that he conveyed her into Pahiatua by car and handed her over to Hewitt to be brought home by the latter practically once a week for at least six months; that her husband had always approved of and encouraged her to go out by night with Hewitt, and had never inquired where she had been; m March last petitioner refused to allow her to go to Wellington until she said that co-respondent wished to see her there, whereat he at once allowed her to proceed; that petitioner frequently spoke to Hewitt on the telephone and approved of or arranged meetings between the two; her husband had sent Hewitt to meet him at the Pahiatua Club; he encouraged her to bathe one evening 1 m the river with one Eilers, neither she nor Eilers being attired m clothing. In February last the petitioner bathed with her and her sister m the river near their house, without bathing attire and during such bathe pulled off the bathing clothes of her sister. On a great many occasions she returned home late at nights and her husband never inquired where she had been nor displayed any interest m her conduct. On numerous . occasions petitioner heard her talking with Hewitt over the telephone and never objected. She had a large photograph of Hewitt Th the bedroom to which petitioner never objected. He often arranged for her to talk over the telephone with Hewitt so that the latter's wife should be unaware of | the fact. The co-respondent added a few more details. He said: That Bolton approved of his wife wearing an armlet co-respondent had given her. That he approved of Eileen having her photo taken so that she could give one to him. That when she was at Hastings, Bolton refused to send her money and told her to borrow from Hewitt. Petitioner, of course, strenuously denied all these accusations. He had given his wife good holidays each year and after she learnt to drive the car, never refused her the use of it. He didn't know she and Hewitt Avere meeting frequently, although once or twice they had met m town and had had afternoon tea together. For the visit to Hastings, respondent had asked. for the car, but as she was an inexperienced driver, he thought it best that she should go by train. He certainly had not handed her over to Hewitt when m Pahiatua.

He Trusted Her

All these denials proved rather irritating: to Lawyer Treadwell, who was defending Mrs. Bolton. In exasperation he declared: "There is going to be some frightful perjury m this case." Counsel: Difl you leave your wife with Hewitt outside the club and go off with Miss Shute, your wife's sister? Witness: No. Will you deny that Mrs. Shute warned you that you should not let Mrs. Bolton go out so much with Hewitt? — Yes. Didn't you tell your wife not to let her mother know that she was going out with Hewitt or you would never hear the end of it? — No. Didn't you ring: Hewitt for your wife so that if Mrs. ' Hewitt came to the telephone you could ask for Hewitt? — The only time I rang him was about club matters. He is not a member of the club now. That is just a little bit of poison, isn't it? — He isn't a member of the club now, anyway. He had never seen a photo of Hewitt m his wife's bedroom; he had not sent her away. She went of her own accord. He trusted her and had no reason to suspect her conduct until she had, confessed that morning at the breakfast table. Petitioner had quite a different ver : sion of the |wo bathing episodes mentioned by the respondent m her statement of his conduct. This was the picture he painted to the jury. An evening party — someone suggests a bathe m the creek — a friend named Bilers is the only one who takes

the suggestion seriously and he gets into his togs — petitioner shows him the way down the track to the stream, taking a lantern because it is dark — Eilers goes m off the springboard — petitioner then hears someone going down the dray road to another portion of the stream — he picks it to be his wife — ho hears a splash and calls out, "Look out for the eels," by way of a joke — Mrs. Bolton leaves the water and returns to the house, he and Eilers following later — the place where respondent entered the water is two or three chains away from the spot where Eilers went m and there is a bend m the stream so that one place could not be seen from the other. But what did Eileen have to say about the affair? "Tell me about the bathing episode?" asked counsel when she was m the box. "Eilers, my husband and I went down together," she answered. "We were all dressed then, but Eilers went m without . togs on. He sang out to me: 'Oh, do come in.' I replied that I didn't have a costume, but

further up the stream and leave Mrs. Bolton m the shallows? — There was better swimming up there. And on the other occasion you stood by when she was trying to dry herself as best she could with no towel ? — She was not there. Mrs. Bolton tells me she has never been kissed by you for two years ? — She didn't want to be kissed by mo. Did you ever offer to kiss her? — Yes. I offered when she had her teeth out. And what did she do? — She edged away. Did you never find her crying because she was lonely? — No. ' And did she ' never tell you that she was going to run away? — No. And that you told her to go, but that she would soon be back where her bread and butter was ? — No. Did you take much interest m the way she ran the house? — Yes. You were everlastingly m the kitchen interfering with the way things were being run ? — I don't remember. Didn't Mrs. Shute tell you to get out? — I don't remember. Edith Maud Eil-

my husband said: ers was tne nrst 'That doesn't matter, go in,' I went witness called by the petitioner. She m and petitioner sat on the bank and told the jury that she had known Mrs. watched me." Bolton for some years, prior to her "And what happened when you and marriage, m fact. One day, Eileen your sister were bathing along with came to her m great trouble stating petitioner one day?" asked counsel. that she was expecting a child and "The three of us were bathing to- that Jack Hewitt was the father. She gether. My husband certainly pulled came to see her several times that off my sister's bathing-suit m front of week and they talked the matter over me and caught her underneath the each time, arms and swam with her up the stream "I advised her to make sure of her a bit and under some willows." condition before she spoke to her husCounsel: "Didn't you say anything?" band about it," added witness, "but Witness: "No, but I thought it an later I received a note from her to say extraordinary thing to do." that she had broken the news to him." It is interesting here, to mention It was Mrs. Bilers' hubby, by the Bolton's account of this eventful day. way, who had allegedly gone m with "They were all trying to duck me," Mrs. Bolton for the evening swim, he told the jury," and m the scramble, Witness was at the party that night the button on the shoulder strap of and told the court that she saw her the sister's costume came undone, hubby and Felix depart. That is all that happened." The former was m his bathing togs Counsel m cross-examination failed and Mrs. Bolton at that time was still to secure from Felix a satisfactory m the dining-room with the remainder answer to a suggestion that he was of the visitors. Later, she came out purposely confusing the button mci- with a coat on buttoned to the neck, dent with the one recalled by his wife, but Maud said she did not know what That was all that happened, was it? was underneath. Why did you and your wife's sister go Counsel: Do you mean to say that

you never observed whether she had stockings on? Witness (indignantly): I am not m the habit of looking at- people's feet. „ The next witness was Alfred John Swan, who described himself as a drover who, to add to his daily earnings, milked a few cows on a section adjacent to the Pahiatua recreation ground. Swan entered the witnessbox with a large grin on his face. He had hopped over the recreation ground fence, he told the jury, making a short cut home from milking. Behind the dressing- shed lying on a coat spread on the ground were Mrg. Bolton and Hewitt. This was between four and five o'clock and he passed within a few yards of them. "I told them they ought to be home m bed," said the witness with a broader grin than ever. Neither Hewitt nor Mrs. Bolton replied. Witness added that on another occasion he saw them sitting on a gate , at the reserve, and on still another occasion, leaving it. Each time it would be between four and five m the ! afternoon. To Lawyer Cooper (Hewitt's counsel) the witness admitted that the recreation ground was fairly frequently visited by people and that cricket and football were sometimes played there. He also recalled having seen mothers there with their children. Lawyer Ongley announced at this stage that he had no more evidence to call.

Exit Mr. Hewitt

It was at this point that the oase reached, rather a dramatic stage. Lawyer H. R. Cooper pleaded for co-respondent's dismissal from the suit as there was no reliable evldenoe against him to go to the jury. Swan's evidence, he claimed, showed nothing more than that the parties were under circumstances, very friendly . no doubt, but not suspicious. Something more than mere suspicion was required. The recreation ground episode was perhaps, an indiscretion but was far more compatible with innocence than guilt. If they had been there at night time it would have been different. His honor asked counsel how he could consider the recreation ground episode as misconduct. According to Swan a lot of people went there. Lawyer Ongley: The ground is nothing more than a paddock, and they were observed lying on a coat. His Honor: They certainly have been indiscreet, but that is hardly evidence of misconduct. Counsel: If people were not indiscreet their sins might not be found out. His Honor: As regards the charity ball, the fact that a man takes another's wife is not evidence of mlsconduct. Counsel: But the jury is entitled to have the whole associations before them to judge the conduct of the parties. In a meticulous resume of the evidence for the plaintiff, his honor said he would be shirking his duty if he did not withdraw the co-respondent's case from the jury. "Admissions made by the wife are no evidence against the co-respondent, but only against herself," said his honor. "The onus was on the petitioner to prove the case not only against the respondent but also against the co-respondent. "He could not prove the case against the co-respondent by anything the respondent had written or aaid which was not written or said m coreßpondent'e presence. "This may seem a hard rule, but It is really .not bo. It might create the greatest hardship on a co-respondent if the oonfeßßion of a wife were ever hold to implicate him. She might be making a false confession. Before a petitioner can succeed m his case against a co-respondent he must produce evidence against him which, to a reasonable mind, must be incompatible with innocence and consistent only with misconduct." But the question o£ costs has not yet been finally disposed of. Counsel argued the matter of costs later on m the case when Lawyer Tinney, of Pahiatua, asked that Hewitt should be made to foot the bill, a request that Lawyer Cooper regarded as moat extraordinary. "He asks for costs from a man

"If I Could"

against whom he has no evidence," asserted counsel. "And whom everyone m court knows is guilty," observed his honor. Counsel: The misconduct of corespondent has not been established. His Honor: Yet ! would like to make him pay all the costs if I could. Counsel: I am afraid there is no authority? a „ Hlh Honor: That is what I am afraid of myself. His honor then intimated that before allotting- the costs he would look into the position. , After co-respondent's dismissal, the court proceeded to hear respondent's side of the story. Much of this, of course, has already been told. She added, however, that during the last 12 months she had often met Hewitt m Pahiatua — about once a week. She went into town by car — sometimes with petitioner, sometimes by herself—and her husband knew she was meeting co-respondent. He had never disapproved. She went to dances with Hewitt, motor- drives and had met him m Hastings, Dannevirke, Palmerston North and AVelllngton. Petitioner was quite aware of the fact. He drove her into Pahiatua on& day and left her to be brought home by Hewitt. He said, "Goodbye," and had added: "I suppose you will be home some time to-night." Hewitt used to ring up on the telephone twice a week and petitioner often used to answer it. He never ob-

jected to her seeing, speaking to or going out with co-respondent on any occasion. On one occasion he had even warned her not to let "granny" know of her going out with Hewitt or he would get "beans." Co-respondent had rung up from Hastings at the time of the Charity Ball, intimating his desire to take her, and Bolton had approved. When there, she ran short of money and rang him up for some, only to receive the reply that she could borrow from Hewitt. "I told him I never borrowed money from men and to please send me some," added Eileen. "Did you tell your husband that Mrs. Hewitt knew of your going to the Hastings ball with Hewitt? asked counsel. Witness: Yes. And what did he say? — That Hewitt was a silly fool to tell her, otherwise she would not have known. And one day Hewitt rang you up to go and see him at his house? — Yes. His wife was away. And what did your husband say to that? — That Hewitt took advantage of every occasion he got hold of. Shortly before you separated, did your husband talk to you about Mrs. Hewitt? — Yes. He said to me one day: "Who do you think rangr up." I replied I did not know, whereupon he said it was Mrs. Hewitt- and that she wanted to see him about myself and Jack. Three days later, -witness added, they went to Pahiatua where Mrs. Hewitt was sitting m her car. Respondent said she pointed her out to petitioner and told him he had better go and see what she wanted. Instead he walked straight past. From this point, Lawyer Ongley took up the running, asking respondent if she had told Mrs. Eilers she was m a certain condition to "Jack." Before respondent could answer, however, her counsel had put m an objeotion to the question which his honor upheld on the ground that a witness was not bound to answer any question that tended to show that he or she had been guilty of misconduct. "Did you tell your husband everything?" asked counsel. "Yes." "When you wrote to Mrs. Eilers you called Hewitt, "Jack"? — Yes. And when you wrote to Mrs. Bolton senr., you called him a rotter? — Yes. What had happened, that Hewitt should cease to be Jack and become a rotter? — I can't explain. You can't tell, the jury -what he had done m that fortnight? — I'd 1-a.th'er "not. Wasn't it because Hewitt promised to marry you and didn't? — No. I'd rather not say. You can't make a person say something she doesn't want to, can you? Was it your opinion, when you wrote to Mrs. Bolton senr., that your husband had no brains or he must have seen 1 — T

Probably "Shot"

all that was going on? — He must have had none because he did know. I didn't go about on the sly. His Honor: I can't understand your line of cross-examination, Lawyer Ongley. You have her letters. Why badger the woman? Counsel (to witness): Did your mother ever see Hewitt driving you home? — She knew about it. Where was it your husband used to hand you over to Hewitt? — In the street at Pahiatua. What explanation did you give to your mother when you left her home and went out driving with Hewitt? — She didn't ask for any. Under the rigors of cross-examina-tion respondent broke down and for a time 'wept copiously. Far from tears, however, was. smiling Thelma Lowry, of the nicotine-stained, fingers, who tripped gaily into the witness-box and told what she had observed during her stays at the Bolton homestead. "Fancy having Mr. Hewitt's photo m your husband's bedroom," was her remark to Mrs. Bolton one day, she said. But Mrs. Bolton only replied laughingly: "Oh, he doesn't mind!" Thelma' said she knew Hewitt and the respondent were going about together, and had gone to the charity ball with them. Lawyer Treadwell: You were present at a little party at the Bolton's place? Thelma: Yes. Mr. Bolton went off early to bed as he had to get up early to milk the cows. He told us not to mind that, but carry on, and we did as we were told. Mr. Bolton didn't even hear the car go away. Counsel: I see. The lord of the manor was asleep m bed. How many cows does he milk? Witness: One. Lawyer Ongley: You talked about the funny things Hewitt did? Witness: Yes. He lost his pocketbook and finally found it under his pillow. Was that all? — He rang- up m the middle of the night once, and always got rushed when catching trains. He must have been well "shot" to ring up at that time of tho morning. What do you mean by "shot"? Lawyer Treadwell: Intoxicated. Mrs. Shute, mother of respondent, said she knew of her daughter going out and complained to petitioner about it. He, however, seemed to think that she would be all right. She thought the relations between Bolton and his wife were very peculiar. He never told her what she should do* and she just went on as she liked. Counsel: You knew your position as mother-in-law was a very delicate one? — Yes. That is why I didn't like to interfere very much. Did he ever kiss his wife m your presence? — Yes, once. Hq gave us all a peck as it were. Next m the witness-box was John Edward Hewitt, who told the jury that he first met Mrs. Bolton just after she was married. From then on he used to see her on an average twice a week. He generally used to ring her up asking her to go out, and sometimes Bolton himself answered the telephone. Petitioner never objected to their meeting- and was quite aware of the fact. "He even came to me at the club and told mo his wife was

iiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiu waiting for me to take her to afternoon tea," added witness. Counsel: How old are you?— Fifty-three. You are a married man with a grown-up family?— Yes. And with one .daughter married? —Yes. Would not your meeting with Mrs. Bolton be the talk of the place?-—! have since heard It was. Where did yOu leave Mrs. Hewitt? — She and my daughter used to go playing golf. Ellen Edith Hewitt, wife of corespondent, told the jury of her endeavor to make an appointment -with Bolton. and the failure that had attended her efforts. This concluded the evidence. His honor put two questions to the jury: (1) Did respondent commit mn> conduct with the co-respondent? (2) If so, did petitioner connive at such? Addressing the jury, his honor said that they were, m view of his dismissal of Hewitt from the case, only concerned with the action of Mrs. Bolton. First of all there was her . confession to her husband. She had also been m the witness-box and had not denied the charge. The co-respondent had gone into the box on the question of connivance and he did not deny it. Then there was the confession m a letter sent to the petitioner's mother. It seemed to him that the evidence that

Jury's Opinion — — — i i

she committed misconduct pointed all one way. I As regards connivance, be asked the jury to wipe from their minds all references to the bathing episodes and neglect. The question of connivance dealt only with petitioner's allowing his wife to go out with Hewitt at night and remaining out until all hours. If a man encouraged his wife to go out alone with a married man a.% night and placed her m a situation m whioh any reasonable man should know that misconduct was likely, that was evidence of connivance, no matter what his motive. The onus of proof was on the wife. If it never occurred to petitioner because of his trust m Hewitt, if he thought the friendship innocent, then the Jury ought to find that he did not connive, One fact stood out strongly m petitioner's favor. She had written a letter, on May 20, after she left her husband, m which she called him a fool for not knowing what was going on. If that was an honest expression of her mind, it was obvious she did not think he had been conniving. Then there was also one strong point m respondent's favor. Mrs. Hewitt had mentioned trying to mak* an appointment with petitioner, but had been unsuccessful. Why had he avoided her. The jury took an hour and ten minutes to consider the matter and returned with an affirmative answer to the first question that respondent had committed misconduct. As regards the second question, the answer was m the negative, but that petitioner's carelessness and neglectful conduct may have contributed to the wife's misconduct. Lawyer Treadwell asked for and was granted until January 20 to look into the question of whether the verdict, from the point of view of respondent, was against the weight of evidence.