AUCKLAND DIVORCE SUIT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15855, 29 August 1913, Page 6

AUCKLAND DIVORCE SUIT

CASE FOR THE RESPONDENT. (Pa* Damn I'kina Akociatioh.) AUCKLAND, August 28. The hearing of the euit for divorce brought by William Henry Patorson against his wife 'Mabel Kathleen Patereon and Gustav Kronfeld was continued at. the Supreme Court to-day. In sketching the story of the respondent's life in tho house, counsel said that she bogged her husband over and over again to give her an allowance. Tho petitioner, he said, was a man of means. Counsel was instructed that he was worth probably £3000. The respondent also repeatedly begged the petitioner to let her have a servant, but he replied, " Who is to pay for one?" So the 'husband kept his young wife in that house alone, doing all tho work in it herself, and depriving her of what most husbands would gladly have given their wives—a woman to stay in the house with her. If what was alleged to havo happened had occurred at all, he said without the slightest hesitation that the petitioner lichly deserved it, but it did not occur.

The respondent's story of what took place in the house in Waterloo quadrant on the

night of Juno 28 was outlined by Mr Reed and substantiated later by Mrs Patereon in the witness box. According- to the joint statements, the respondent, on returning from the theatre, entered the house and ■switched on the light in the hall. She iit no other light. She then opened the front door, and while she was standing at tho door Kronfeld came along. The respondent, it was stated, had only known the corespondent for about a fortnight or three weeks. When Kronfeld stopped at the gate he was said to have remarked that lire Paterson was up late, whereupon 6he said that she was goiiig to retire as soon as she had fed the pony. Kronfeld pressed her to let him come and help her to feed the pony and see that everything was safe, and she said, "Very well then; come through the house." They walked downstairs, switching on the lights as they proceeded. went out into the yard, and the respondent fed the pony. Mrs Paterson was stated to have pointed out to Kronfeld a short cut through the back and over the dividing wall to his father's house. The respondent swore,that she then parted from the co-respondent and re-entered the house. She stated that she assisted her husband afld his brother to search the house, and that she herself switched on .ill the lights as they proceeded from room to room. The respondent further declared that she endeavoured then to explain to the petitioner wha had really happened, but he would not listen to her. She stated 1 that he was acting madly, and callcd out " I saw a man got out of the window on to the balcony and jump over." She also swore that after John Patereon had gone out he returned by tho front door, and she saw him unlock a door at the top of the washhouse stairs, and heard him unlock the back door on the floor below prior to calling the respondent. Mr Reed referred to the evidence of the co-respondent taken on commission in Sydney. The evidence stated that tho corespondent. on going through the washhouse door " took care to see that the window in the washhouse was left open; of course, without the knowledge of Mrs Paterson." Kronfeld'6 evidence went on to say that when the respondent went lipstairs after feeding the pcoy she locked the door He waited outside in the yard for some time, and then opened the washhouse window, and got inside. He was about to go upstairs when he heard a noise at the front door. He then got out of the waslihouss window again as quickly as he could. The respondent had not in any way consented to his returning to tho hou6G or remaining in it, nor was she aware that he intended to return. He had never been alone with the respondent ill a room at any time, nor had there ever been any familiarity between them. Further statements in the evidence of Kronfed included a denial that he had asked to bo shot when lie was captured. His version was that his captors came to him and eaid " if vou do not stand still wo will shoot." Tho corespondent told the men in the house that Mrs Pateivon was innocent, and-he had no reason to believe that she was other than a

woman of honour. He felt that hia action had inflicted a very great wrong On the respondent and placed her in a wrong position. Mrs Rose Barker, oroprietress of the Bella Vista boardinghouse, stated that on tho evening of June 27 the respondent was in the kitchen of witness's house from about 5.50 p.m. until about 7 p.m. Cross-examined, witness said that it was not true that the respondent came into the boardinghoufee at 6.20 p.m. FJlen Simms, mother of the respondent, related how the petitioner came to her house after the happenings in Waterloo quadrant early on the morning of June 28, and told her he had caught a man in his house. Witness protested later in tho day about the petitioner's action in turning her daughter out in the night. She did not know then that the respondent had returned to the house and had slept in tho downstairs room. Cross-examined, witness said the petitioner had treated respondent very well, and had always been considerate and kind to herself. The court then adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.