CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19946, 13 November 1926, Page 14

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

ALLEGED IMPROP—i CONDUCT. ACTION AGAINST FINANCIAL AGENT. (Per United Press Association.) NAPIER, November 12. His Honor Mr Justice Ostler and a jury of 12 were called on in the Supreme Court to decide a claim for £2OOO by W alter Austin Orbell, a farmer, against Henry A. Mossman, financial agent, of Hastings. The grounds of the claim were alleged adultery between Mossman and Orbell’s wife. Orbell lived some miles inland on a farm purchased by him from the co-respondent, the latter retaining the larger portion of a big estate Mossman visited his farm monthly, and allegedly called at petitioner s house in his absence. During these visits the alleged intimacy occurred. In his evidence petitioner raid his wife received presents from the co-respondent frequently, and this made him suspicious. He remained at home for the next monthly visit, when he threatened to horsewhip the visitor if he did aot tell the truth. The whipping had already started,, when the corespondent, petitioner alleged, admitted kissing the respondent, whom he had visited when sick in bed. ’He had kissed her in the presence of a neighbour who was acting as nurse. , , , , ■ lan Gordon Stowe, a shepherd on plain #:ff’s farm, supported Orbeil’s evidence in some details, a*nd also gave evidence as to having known Mossman to be alone in the house with Mrs Orbell for an hour at a time. .... , . Mrs Orbell was called for plaintift. Following argument on a legal point, his Honor warned the witness that she need not answer questions tending to show she had committed adultery with Mossman, but that if she preferred to answer them she might do so. .... ivt. Mrs Orbell, under examination by Mr Lusk, admitted that there had been intimacy on several occasions, between herself and Mossman, who visited the house frequently when h husband was absent. Impropriety first occurred in June, la2b, and on other occasions up to November. Witness said that Mossman had given her presents of chinaware, underclothing, and ordinary clothes. After Orbell had discovered what had been going on, Mossman told witness he was very sorry for what had happened, and wished ha had taken her advice, and been careful. Mossman said : “A man in love does not think of these things.” 1 , Replying to his Honor, witness said she did not expect to go back to her husband as the result of consenting to sign a statement containing admissions. Mr Gray, opening for the defence, said Orbell left his wife apparently on the slightest provocation, and had not hesitated to bring her into court and expose her shame in order to extract from Mossman anything up to £2OOO. Defendant’s case consisted of an absolute denial of the charges. Defendant stated in evidence that the allegations of Mrs Orbell that adultery had been committed were false in every detail. Witness further said plaintiff accused him of robbing him in connection with business matters, and threatened to murder witness. Orbell was a maniac for three hours, and it was not until after he had cooled down somewhat that he accused defendant of improper conduct towards his wife. Plaintiff struck Mossman and threatened to kill him, but the latter objected and said he would come round next morning to be killed. Plaintiff accused Mossman of being the father of Mrs Orbell’s youngest child. _ Mr Lusk: What you are going to ask the jury to believe is that Mrs Richards, Mrs Orbell, plaintiff, and Stowe entered into a criminal conspiracy to extract money from your- pocket? . Defendant; Yes, I think_ so. If it is not contempt of court I will say that I think the whole thing is blackmail. The case was adjourned till to-morrow.