MORGAN DIVORCE CASE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18551, 10 November 1934, Page 15

MORGAN DIVORCE CASE

WIFE GIVES. EVIDENCE ‘‘UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE ’’ MISCONDUCT DENIED (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON’, this day. The case in which Edward Morgan, the boxer, is a petitioner- in a defended divorce suit, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Outlining the case; lor the defence, Mr, Rollings said, that it. was absolutely a denial of adultery between Airs. Morgan" and Marsh, or anyone else. Petitioner’s case was unique in two respects. First, that apart from the alleged confessions or admissions there was not a scintilla of evidence, direct or. circumstantial, of adultery. Marsh had been engaged to ride for Mr. Wilson, respondent’s father.

The jury, he said, was asked to infer that because Marsh and Mrs. Morgan happened to be- at the same dance in Gisborne and walked downstairs with others after the dance adultery had been committed, Then there was the adultery allegation at Hastings, hut respondent, merely stayed the night with a. friein! Oil her way back to Wellington, The second point was that apparently all the information on which the petitioner based his claim for divorce proceedings came from his wife. He did not have any witnesses keeping watch for him and did not suspect- his wife. The' jury was asked to believe that Airs.

•Morgan had committed adultery with a map she had known only a. couple of days. If they had had legal advice, he submitted, they -would not have signed the papers. Airs. Morgan’s ideas ' aboutdivorce were those of the average girl of 23 or 24 years. AIRS. MORGAN'S EVIDENCE, Respondent, formerly Aliss Norma Wilson, of Gisborne, said they became engaged oil their return from the 1928 Olympic -Games, but she broke off Hie engagement after two years. Last year she met Morgan in Wellington 'aiid‘ three weeks later they were marritSd. They spent two months in Brisbane, during which time- he did no work, earned no moifey, and really lived on her money. Generally speaking, throughout the whole of her married life site had been unhappy. Continuing, Mrs. Alorgan said that early this year, with her husband’s concurrence, she went to Gisborne fbr a holiday. She went out only once to a social function, to a dance at the Blue Room, but denied going with Alarsh, She went unaccompanied by any man, /and’did not dance once with Marsh. She 'had only known' him about; three days and went home in a ear with Marsh, who Was staying at her father’s house and was an -employee of her father. During the dance she did not leave the hall; and the suggestion that she misconducted herself with Marsh was perfectly untrue.

When petitioner rang up from Wellington arid said that if she did not return to him there would be no home for her to go to, she said she would come and get her things. She stayed a night en route with a friend, ’ Airs. Thomas, at Hastings. Alarsh had boarded with the Thomases, but she did not go there for that reason. She did not leave the house during the evening, and slept with Mrs. Thomas. -Mr. Rollings: It is suggested that somewhere that night in Hastings you committed adultery with Marsh. Respondent: That is not’true. . Continuing, she said her husband met her at Wellington with the remark, ■“Well, I, suppose you've got some joker up" there.’’ She told,him she was going tp leave him because of*his cruelty, and, that she had been advised to get -police iprotection. He said that was unnecessary, and that if she cailie hortie and got, her things he would riot touch her. Morgan told her that if, she drew certain money from the bank she could get a divorce.

His, Honor: You wanted a divorce? Bespcndent: We both wanted it. • Wlieli the parties went to Mr. Ongley’s office, she continued, she thought a divorce could be obtained if both agreed. She drew £42 out'of the bank and gave Ker husband £32, in Mr. Ongley’s office. She was told that if she signed certain papers she would be able to get a divorce. I “THIS. ELABORATE BUSINESS” His Honor said ho could not understand why all “this elaborate business had been gone in for.” If she had come down and left her husband, proceedings for the" restitution of conjugal rights could have been taken and then if Mrs. Morgan did not return; Morgan could have applied on this ground for a divorce.

Respondent said that on the train for Hastings she refused to sign papers presented to her by her husband and lie threatened to make a scene, whereupon she signed them, but told him that she knew tliey were untrue. At Hastings, she said, when Marsh was shown the papers and asked to sign them, lie was dumbfounded, and said he would not .sign, for Morgan or anyone else. Morgan then slapped Marsh on the face, and, getting pretty worked up, witness told Marsh she had" been told that if he signed them everything would he all right. Marsh wanted to see a solicitor, hut Morgan would not have tliat" arid added that if the papers Were not sighed neither respondent' nor Marsh would be altVo, Morgan agreed to sign an undertaking that he would riot claim" dgintigbs);' arid was Standing lover Marsh so that he had no option but to sign the papers. He signed them, hut Morgan, instead of handing over the paper he had signed, retained it and dashed across the railway lines. She. chased and caught him, hut lie gob clear. She caught him again, and Morgan then gave heir the paper. The court, .adjourUod till Monday.