AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2400, 1 March 1900, Page 8

AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

AUCKLAND, February 21. A divorce case of considerable interest was commenced at the Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justice Conolly and a jury. The petitioner was Arundel Freke Scolt, of Auckland, who prayed for a decree nisi for the dissolution of his marriage with Lucy Ethel Maude Scott (respondent) on the ground I of her adultery with several person?. The co- '■ respondents cited were John Daniels (Wellington), John Tanner, and Cecil Boucher. ! Messrs Theo. Cooper and Hugh Campbell appeared for the petitioner, Mr C. E. Button appeared for the co-respondent Cecil Boucher, and Mr T. M. Wilford (of Wellington* for the co-respondent Daniels. Neither respondent nor the co-respondent Tanner were represented by counsel, nor did they appear. Mr Hugh Campbell, in opening the case, stated that in 1892 petitioner was married to respondent, Lucy Ethel Maude Scott. In May and June, 1897, and in 1899, petitioner alleged acts of adultery were committed by Mrs Scott with the co-respondents named, and also with a man name unknown. The defence was a general denial of the charges of petitioner. The co-respondents also denied having committed adultery. Mr Caninbell meu-

tioned that as there was only suspicion against Cecil Boucher hf would not offer any evidence - against that co-respondent. Cecil Boucher's name was accordingly struck out from the list . of co-respondents on the application of Mr Button. The whole forenoon was devoted to ' evidence in support of the petition, which,' included revelations from a diary in the handl writing of Mrs Scott and a letter from John; i Tanner to Mrs Scott. William George Basj sett, private detective, deposed to having gone' | to Victoria to serve a copy of the petition and; i a citation on John Tanner. He served it afc 1 Cheshunt (Victoria) last year. Tanner ad- , mitted he was the co-respondent named in tha papers. Witness said if Tanner had not committed adultery with the woman he should! return and say so. Tanner' replied : " I can't, and I suppose I am not the first young man.' that has made that mistake other men's I wives." Mr Cooper said, with reference to the case against Daniels, he wished to withdraw the case against that gentleman. It was not his (Mr Cooper's) duty to damn a man's character except upon the most reliable evidence. After consulting with petitioner and with Mr Wilford he had come to the conclusion it was manifestly his duty to withdraw I the case against Daniels. There was nothing which would justify petitioner in charging Daniels with adultery with Mrs Scott. He therefore asked that Daniels's name as corespondent lie struck out. Mr Wilford thanked Mr Cooper for his generous action towards his (Mr Wilford's) client. He further said he was well aware Mr Cooper "did 'not know when the" action was begun .what the character of the chief -witness against Daniels was. Mr Wilford had been well acquainted with that witness for a, number of years, and knew what his character was. His Honor I accordingly said John Daniels's name as co. respondent would be struck out. The jury, . after a short retirement, returned with a verdict to the effect that Mrs Scott and 'John , Tanner had committed adultery with each, other. A decree nisi for a dissolution of the , marriage was granted, with costs on the highest scale against Tanner, petitioner to have custody of the children.