PETITION FOR DIVORCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21940, 29 April 1933, Page 15

PETITION FOR DIVORCE

HUSBAND’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES HEARING OF CASE CONTINUED Further evidence was heard yesterday in the case in which Neil George M'Kinnon petitioned for a divorte from Kathleen Dorothea M'Kinnon on the ground of adultery,. Edward George Couper being named as M'Kinnon also brought a claim for £SOO damages against Couper; Mr J. M. Paterson and Mr H. S. Ross appeared for the petitioner, Mr C. J. L. White for the respondent, and Mr G. T. Baylee for the co-respondent. Continuing his evidence M'Kinnon said that in a telephone conversation Miller said, “You can take it from me that the evidence I will give will not help you, and I don’t care if I do two months for it.” He denied that Miller had been promised something out of the damages. William Miller, a labourer, said that he accompanied M'Kinnon to 10 Helena street on July 16. He remained in the street, and M'Kinnon went in the gate. After some ti,me had elapsed Mrs M'Kinnon came out and said, “ I don’t like the look of you, but if you are with Mr M'Kinnon you had better come in and look around.” When they were in the house Couper appeared on the scene. He and M'Kinnon nearly came to blows. M‘Kinnon said, “Now you are caught. I have a witness here.” Before going into the house witness saw a small green car in the street outside. The witness claimed that he was not engaged as a private detective but as a bodyguard. M'Kinnon told him that all he wanted was to frighten his wife into taking proceedings against him for restitution of conjugal rights. Ho had a lady of his choice, but was not engaged to her. After they left the house M'Kinnon said that it was all fixed. Witness was ashamed of the part he had taken in the matter. He lived in a house in Anderson’s Bay and Couper was his landlord. He saw Couper on Saturday afternoons and also one night when M'Kinnon came out with a man named Frew. He and Couper did not discuss the case. After what he took to be attempted intimidation ho went to the police. Mr Paterson asked permission to treat the witness as hostile, and his Honor assented.

The witness denied making statements with respect to events at Helena street to Mr A. G. Neill, the solicitor, or to Mr Ross. He admitted that he had made alterations to a statement which Mr M’Kitmon had shown him. _ The statement, however, did not contain his narrative. He denied that what Mr Paterson termed his “forgetfulness and change of front ” were the result of conversations with Couper. To Mr White witness said that on the day after his visit to Helena street he was called to M’Kinnon’s office. M Kinnon said, “You will tell the same story as me. I will dictate it and you .can sign it afterwards.” Miss Johnston was thero and took part in the conversations. She said that she was practically engaged to M’Kinnon. At Helena street he saw nothing to indicate that misconduct had occurred between Couper and Mrs M’Kinnon. He had been requested on more than one occasion to sign statements as to what occurred that night, and he had consistently refused. From her attitude Miss Johnston appeared to be interested in the divorce. The first letter he received in connection with the case was signed “Johnston.” He was requested to burn the letter and did so. Before the “raid” he went for a drive with M’Kinnon. They went into the house where he was living now. He thought that M’Kinnon wanted to catch his wife there. On one occasion about the end of July Miss Johnston gave him an envelope containing £3. All he had got from M’Kinnon was about £6. That was a gift. There had been no contract. M’Kinnon had not been keeping him in Dunedin since July last by giving him small payments. He was on relief works. In the envelope handed to him by _ Miss Johnston was a note from M’Kinnon saying that he had got what he wanted, that his wife would take proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, and that if he failed to obey a decree nisi would be granted. M’Kinnon offered to give him a retainer of 30s a month until the case began and also told him that he would get a “ cut ” out of the damages. Witness would not accept anything. When Frew and M’Kinnon went to his house Frew, who had handcuffs, told him he would arrest him, giving no reason. Llewllyn Hugh Frew, a night watchman, said that M’Kinnon asked him to assist in some inquiries. _ On April 11 he accompanied the petitioner to South Dunedin. He saw Couper and Mrs M’Kinnon walking arm in arm. Later witness and M’Kinnon went to Miller’s hut, but he did not try to put the handcuffs on Miller. He.had been paid £5 by M’Kinnon. . Agnes M’Kinnon, a sister of the petitioner, corroborated evidence given by the petitioner with respect to the opening of a parcel addressed to Mrs M’Kinnon ' and the contents of a note found in it. Her mother had assisted in the maintenance of the respondent and the children since 1930.

This concluded the evidence for the petitioner. Mr White, in opening the case for the respondent, said that adultery was denied. If a man wished a divorce on such a ground ho should come to the court with clean hands. The was entitled, if the conduct of the petitioner was sufficiently unsatisfactory, to refuse a divorce even if adultery had been proved. It was claimed in this case that if there had been adultery, which was denied, the petitioner, by his negligence and by his misconduct, bad conduced

to adultery. During the hearing of evidence for the respondent a most discreditable picture would be painted of the petitioner. It ,was strange, after his treatment of the respondent and the terms on which he had returned to her on one occasion, that he should ask for £SOO for the loss of her society. Counsel suggested that he wanted the money as a wedding present to enable him to marry Miss Johnston. Why had Mrs M'Cubbin and Miss Johnston not been called so that they could give evidence as to their innocence. The respondent, in giving evidence, said that her married life with McKinnon was happy at first, but after they went to Clyde it was not so happy. M'Kinnon was drinking heavily and there was trouble over money. On one occasion she taxed him with taking Mrs M'Cubbin to the races, and he admitted it. Previously he had stated that she was pestering him with her attention. This question of his taking Mrs M'Cubbin to the races was the final cause of the separation. She told M'Kinnon that she would kill him if he stayed in the house after that. M'Kinnon stayed away for several nights. It was agreed when they separated that she should have the custody of the children. She then came to Dunedin. At Christmas M'Kinnon came down and stayed for some days. Subsequently he visited her intermittently. On one occasion in Dunedin she asked him if there w r as anything between him and Mrs M'Cubbin, and he. admitted that there was. The hearing w r as adjourned until Monday.