SOLDIER SEEKS DIVORCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24915, 14 May 1942, Page 4

SOLDIER SEEKS DIVORCE

WIFE’S CONDUCT DURING ■ ABSENCE ' . : (P A.) AUCKLAND,. May 13.; The hearing of a contested action for divorce in which damages were claimed was commenced to-day before Mr Justice Fair and a jury. The petitioner was formerly a member of the detective force, Charles Patrick Belton, described as an insurance adjuster, and at present a ; sapper with the New Zealand forces. The respondent was Joyce Doreen Belton, and James Meldrum Scarlett, a company manager, was named as the co-respondent. Mr G. Skelton appeared for both, / In addition to seeking a divorce, the custody of their two children and costs, the petitioner claimed damages from the co-respondent.-' The respondent denied the allegations of adultery, and alleged, alternatively, that if there had been it had been induced by the I conduct. ■ ■ Mr Robinson said the parties were; married in 1933 and they had a girl aged seven and a boy aged six. The petitioner alleged adultery on dates extending from September ,193& ; <to March 1942 said counsel. ' Between these periods the petitioner forgave his wife and became reconciled to her. Mrs Belton was literary and they worked together on the publication of a book of his experiences as a detective entitled “ Outside the Law in New Zealand.” " ■ '. 'i :, •’ Counsel said that in the first month of the - war Belton enlisted. His wife later confessed’she had' been unfaithful with “Jim Scarlett,” but'he forgave her on her promise, that she would never see Scarlett again., At the end of 1939 Belton left with the troops for Egypt from where he wrote to her regularly and sent her presents and allotments but in 1940 he received word from Auckland. ■ that ;she , was carrying on wit!) Scarlett., Petitioner eventually broke down in health and was sent back to New Zealand where he arrived last February. During the 31 months he was away he had sent over £SOO to his wife. When Belton met his wife again after returning counsel added he was under the impression that Scarlett had disappeared and again he agreed to a reconciliation. He found, however, that it was necessary to have his wife watched by a private inquiry agent. The agent took a flashlight photograph of the respondent and the co-respond-ent, which Mr Robinson displayed to the jury. He asked if adultery could be denied in the face of that. In evidence, the petitioner said there was not the slightest foundation for his wife’s allegations against-him of drunkenness, cruelty, and association with other women. His worst offence apparently, had been that he had returned from the war.

The petitioner was under cross-ex-amination when the court adjourned.