WEIRD CONTRACT OF SALE

NZ Truth, Issue 1272, 17 April 1930, Page 4

WEIRD CONTRACT OF SALE

Lover Agrees To Purchase Wife With Farm DIVORCE FOLLOWS DEAL COLLAPSE (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland * ?uiiiit tiiiif iriijf ■tifiiiiiriiiiiiitiiiiiiiriiiiiiiriiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiirf iriiiiiiiiiiiirt iiiiitiit itJiitifiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitjf m iiiiiriiiiiitiiiriiiimriii^

An echo of a most unusual divorce case, m which. John Perciyal Smith, a farmer, of. .Kaiwaka, North Auckland, contracted to sell his 'farm, his wife, and children to Joseph Archibald McLean, a young neighboring farmer, who was cited as co-respondent, was heard when the husband's petition was granted on the second hearing. . • '

PREVIOUSLY, when . Smith tried to XT divorce his wife, the judge found that the strange agreement constituted collusion between the parties, and he dismissed the husband's application for that reason. Now, seven months later, Smith has trained his objective. The second hearing took place before His Honor Mr. Justice Ostler. Smith was represented by Mr. InKier, and .Mr: V. R. Meredith, who appeared for- McLean:, was given leave Jto withdraw his defence. When the husband placed his petition before His Honor Mr. Justice Smith last year, he told the court that ftbbut Christmas time m 1928 his wife had confessed her relationship with McLean. • . • ■At that hearing, Smith said, she had told him his neighbor was the father bt her little girl, and also of another child then unborn. McLean admitted everything when h«: taxed him with stealing his wife's affections, Smith told the court. : Eventually the matter was arranged to the apparent satisfaction of all parties m the office of George Clark Walker, a solicitor, at Auckland.. ■ . McLean there signed the agreement to take over wife, children and farm, on the "walk m, walk out" principle. The agreement itself was handed to His Honor Mr. Justice Smith. MET AT SALE The two families became friendly about nine year's before he had reason to suspect his wife, explained the husband m the early hearing. He did not know McLean had been paying 10/- a week to maintain ( the little girl born m February, 1928. i .He met McLean at a sale, he explained, and he asked him to come to his place and "talk the matter over." "I asked him if he would buy the farm;; arid if I divorced Mrs. Smith would he marry her and buy the stock on. my farm. '"He agreed to this, and also that the little girl .. and the other child BhoulfL 'live 'with Mrs. Smith. . . . She made 'no objection to being handed pver withvthe. property. . . .", .Awaked to remember ;which of the •parties had • suggested that the little girl's name be changed from "Smith" to "McLean," the husband could not remember. In February he met McLean -by arr Jangement;. outside the Auckland Post Pmce. McLean's mother was kept In ighorJuice 'of.lthe agreement. - Asked' if the document had been (toad to McLean, Smith answered that •"a good bit of it" had. _ He ■ told counsel *he did not know Jrhat connivance or collusion meant. "1 am a poor scholar, and I left it £& the solicitors," was his reply. McLean had been told that the costs

of an undefended divorce action "would be about £50, and he had agreed to pay it. "I was present when McLiean signed the -d° cumen V' said Smith. / He- left the solicitor's -office, with McLean and took with him . ;.a confession ifor his wife v to sign: ' : j • . His wife met him : the/; railway station , when he returned' to Kaiwatka, and asked ' hini. how he had "got on." jHe continued :to ; live with her until/ McLean completed his purchase m July.;- '?).-*■&*> Trie ; 'ne\vs of what McLean and Smith'contemplated reached McLean's, mother,,. however, and Smith went on to tell of." a cpniFerence ' between all parties m the washhouse sit the McLean farm. i The co-respondent's mother asked Smith to withdraw the proceedings. He denied he N had asked her to' -make some offer. if heJ'didj so. ,! ' - : " . He further denied; that lie had tfeen offered £800 to withdraw.. the divorce action, or that McLean should provide for the children to the extent of about £900. '-"Archie (McLean) said:. 'I don't ■want It that way; I want it as arranged,'" the husband told Judge gmith. . "I never, never, never said . I knew this had T^een^golrig^on^for ; Oa long time," declared Smith. . i i yvhti) h>j met McLean and hisj

mother again later at Jaques's store, Smith said he had been offered £1000. "Did you* not- say £1000 was not enough?" asked McLean's counsel. "I don't remember," was the husband's reply. • "I did say I .was getting old and -wanted something for my old age. A thousand was not too much to go to a new place arid start again." "~* w Pressed to say' what he considered a fair price, Smith could ,*not say, but he '■• denied he had said £2000 "would be more like it." 1 He had told McLean to "talk it over with the wife." To his Honor, Smith said he received £750 arid a mortgage for his farm, and £100 for the furniture. Telling the court of the first intimation he had that McLean had decided

to defend the divorce action, Smith said he had a visit from a solicitor, who notified him of the intention. "I told them that was not m the agreement," he said. He was told McLean would not pay any more money and would not marry Mrs. Smith. McLean, Smith told the court, took possession of the farm on July 1. He intended to take his wife and children to some other place and leave McLean with a free hand. "LAND AND WIFE" Called to give evidence regarding the agreement between the two men, George Clark Walker, a solicitor, said Smith had instructed him to take proceedings for divorce. ' McLean, had admitted he was the father of Mrs. Smith's girl and the unborn child. : McLean, said the solicitor, expressed a desire to have possession of his children and Mrs. Smith. "It looks like a sale of land and wife," commented his Honor at this hearing. Asked if it were o proper to allow McLean to accept the liability of the maintenance of the young girl, "Walker replied *that "McLean was quite willing to undertake the responsibility." "Was the sale of land incidental to the transfer of the wife?" his Honor wanted know, and Walker replied that he did not think so. A lawyer's clerk was called to give evidence of having seen McLean sign the document m question, , and he had heard McLean admit paternity, he said. , . At the hearing of the case last year, Mrs. Smith also gave evidence, and she admitted she had signed a confession as to her misconduct with McLean. Since then, she had broken relationship with her husband, she said. She knew that Smith had received money from McLean for the children. "I knew nothing about the agreement by McLean to buy the farm until my husband came home that day," said Mrs. Smith. "My husband told me I Vould be all right,' and said McLean would marry me." McLEAN'S STORY Asked if she raised any objection, the woman stated she had agreed to the proposition "for the, sake of the children." The storekeeper, Francis Jaques, was also called when the case was first heard, and he said he heard McLean offer Smith £1000. The arrangement . was for Smith to keep his farm, keep the case out of court, and to keep the children. When McLean went into the box on the second day of the first hearing, he stated that Smith had said £1000 was not sufficient. He first associated with Mrs. Smith m 1927, and their meetings had ibeen generally m the daytime. He believed Mrs. Smith to be truthful, he added, and he did not doubt her when she told him he . wasthe-father of two of her chlld- .'■ . ren. . ■; .;;■;, ■ : His Honor Mr.. Justice Smith reserved his decision after hearing the lengthy evidence,. and 'two weeks latter dismissed Smith's application on the ground that tlTe">. "suit had Been instituted pursuant to a collusive agreement. ' Seven months elapsed before Smith again petitioned the Supreme Court.