SECRET MARRIAGE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3754, 23 February 1926, Page 65

SECRET MARRIAGE.

STRANGE STORY UNFOLDED PETITION FOP. DIVORCE. AUCKLAND, February 15. The strange story of a man and a woman entering into marriage and keeping the matter a secret for a number of years, and the wife’s refusal to permit her husband to tell her people, was told in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Stringer and a jury of 12 by petitioner ip n defended divorce action. Eric Harold Clouston (Mr West) sougnt a dissolution of his marriage with Hilda Clouston (Mr Moody) on the grounds o* misconduct Robert Knight (Mr Singer) was cited as co-respondent Mr West said the case was simple in its essence. Tlk only point was whether the misconduct had taken place Tlie parties were married on April 10. 1918. Petitioner wap then 24 years of age and respondent 2? Tlie co-respondent. Robert Knight, was a waterside worker, and the jurv had to decide whether the respondent nad committed misconduct with him on the night of September 29. 1925 at Point Erin Park. The previous life of the parties was peculiar. Respondent insisted from the time she wa s married that she should maintain her status as a single woman. She also insisted l hat her father should not know o' the marriage The couple spent a holiday together but did not occupy the same rooms. On their return to Auckland they lived at their respective homes. Later petitioner informed his people of the marriage, and this condition of affairs continued until in despair of moving his wife from her set state of mind, petitioner told her father of rhe marriage. That made no difference to respondent, and they continued to ive as usual. Up to this time petitioner had not any suspicions of his wife and allowed her 30s per week, but she had been working as a waitress Last year he decided that. as she would not make a home with him he would seek a separation, but he refused to let him do that. About this time his suspicions became aroused In August, 1925. she took a position in a hotel as a waitress, and one day he met her in ' company with a man. He watched her. and in company with a private inquiry agent, followed the respondent and 4 he man to Point Erin Park It was here, cn the night of September 29, that petitioner would say he saw misconduct take place Petitioner, ir. his cidence, covered the same lines as his counsel. To Mr Moody: I did not offer my wife €3O not to defend the action. I offered her nothing. Witness denied he had taken her out since September 29. Ho admitted that he did not have a home for her. His Honor: Why did you not make a home instead of taking her up to the Domain and Mount Eden. Petitioner; She would not let me get a home. To Mr Moody: I did not take her up to Mount Eden six days before filing the petition. I will deny any statement her brother-in-law makes as to my being frequently with my wife since the proceedings. Mr Singer said it was a matter of comment that witness continued to go out with his wife r.nd obtain marital rights. Both respondent and co-respondont in giving evidence, emphatically denied the alleged misconduct. Respondent said that from the day of the wedding petitioner had kept, both the wedding ring and the marriage certificate She had from the first offered to live with her husband anywhere if he would only provide a home. He had not given her anything like 30s a week. Indeed, any monev of all he had given her had been small amounts of a few shillings. He had had intimate relations with her up to January 30 Inst. It was at (Houston’s suggestion tnnt the marriage was kept secret. The jury, after a retirement of seven minutes, found that misconduct did not take place on September 29, and the petition was dismissed, with costs to both lespondent and corespondent.