BLAMED THE CONSTABLE

NZ Truth, Issue 1253, 5 December 1929, Page 7

BLAMED THE CONSTABLE

POLICEMAN MADE EMPHATIC DENIAL

Husband Cites Man In Blue As Co-re. In Divorce Suit

(From "N.Z. Truth's" South Auckland Representative):

Haying reason to suspect his wife, Thomas Nicol, a Taumarunui laborer, watched her house after 11 o'clock one night. He saw a man stealthily enter and leave again about an hour later. He followed the man, whom he declared to be a local police constable, Alexander Robb. Nicol charged him with paying unauthorised visits to his wife. The constable denied the accusations, and the sequel was a divorce suit.

IVTICOIj was separated from his fwife, A ' Agnes Ann Nicol, by an order of the Court m November, 1927, and has not resided iwith her since. She went to live m a house m the main street of Taumarunui with three of her. four children. On October 8, 1928, Nicol, . having reason to suspect the conduct of his wife, watched her house m company with a native interpreter. About 11.15 p.m. they saw a man enter the residence and they saw him leave at 12.20. They followed him along the street, and, according to Nicol, they accosted the same man who proved to be Constable Robb.. On the' following morning Nicol went along to the police station and reported the matter to the sergeant m charge. A departmental inquiry was instituted, when Robb strenuously denied, as he has done all along, that it was he who visited Mrs. Nicol. Mrs. Nicol also denied it and . the native interpreter who was watching with Nicol, denied that he had ever seen Robb there at all. On June 13 of this year, Mrs. Nicol gave birth to an illegitimate child. Shortly afterwards she filed. proceedings m the Magistrate's Court at Taumarunui, seeking ah affiliation order against Robb m respect of the newly- born child. . Apparently, however, she was m a somewhat difficult position, not hay-

ing corroborative evidence, and having already denied that Robb had visited -, her, she withdrew- the proceedings. Robb, m the meantime, had left the' police force and the district.. Divorce proceedings were convmenced by Nicol as far back as October, 1928, 'but m view of the evidence of the native interpreter before 1 the departmental inquiry, Robb's solicitor, Mr. J. F. Strang, had great diffidence m bringing on the proceedings. They were commenced on three different occasions, so counsel told Mr. Justice Herdman at Hamilton, when finally Nicol sought nullification of his marriage contract. The action >was to have been defended, but 'both Mrs, Nicol and Robb, who was cited as •co-respondeht, withdrew their answers' shortly before the proceedings were to 'be heard. In the circumstances^ as related above by Mr^ Strang, '. aria "there toeing no corrobprat-iye evidence ' against Robb, Mr.^Str^ng.- agked. that Roibb's name beVdlsmissed .from the proceed- 1 ings, alth6;ugh> 'as he : said, Nicol was morally ce^Vain^-that Robb was a guilty party. ' ■ '--"' . : ; His Honor accordingly struck out Robb's name. . Thomas- Nicol said he married his wife at the Registry Office at Taumarunui an.. 'July '19, 1917. There were four> children "of the marriage.

la 1927 Ma wife made an allegation against Mm of persistent' cruelty and failure to maintain. Neither of the parties gave evidence at the proceedings,: Nicol consenting to an. order. Nicol said he believed that the man who had \risited Ms wife . was Robb. He liad taxed- Mm -with, it, ieut Robb deniecL.it, and had continued, to deny- ft ever since.. "■' V '-." This was jEhe only evidence produced, and as the suit was undefended a, decree nisi was. granted.