DIVORCE SOUGHT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19882, 8 March 1939, Page 7

DIVORCE SOUGHT

ADtfLTERY ALLEGED

£IOOO DAMAGES CLAIMED

LETTERS PRODUCED

A petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery and a claim for £IOOO damages was begun this morning in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Northcroft. The petitioner was Gdrdon McGregor Frederick Marshall (Mr. M. R. Maude) and the respondent Vera Ethel Marshall. Frederick William Peddle (Mr. A. P. Blair) was cited as co-respondent.

The following jury was empanelled: Fred Ouseiley, foreman, Henry Arnott NicOHl, Richard Anstruther-Burson, Edward J. Venn ell, Henry T. Moore, Herbert Read, John McLatchie, Nolan J. C. Redstone, Arthur M. Clark, Fenwick J. .Graham, Bernard W. HefTer, and Frederick M. Coker

Mr. Maude reviewed the case, and read extracts from several letters from Peddle to the respondent. Two and a-half years ago, he said the petitioner had reason to reprimand his wife regarding her conduct with Peddle, a complaint having been received by him from Mrs. Peddle, who was now * living apart from her husband. Mrs. Marshall had denied that anything was wrong and the petitioner thought it best to order Peddle away from his house, although he had known Peddle when the two were boys at school and he and his wife had entertained the Peddles at their home. •

Early this year, said counsel, the petitioner found several letters from Peddle among Mrs. Marshall’s correspondence while the latter was spending, a short time at Otoko, not far from where Peddle was working. Mr. Maude submitted that Marshall would be entitled to a divorce and a considerable amount in damages as there seemed to be no doubt but that the last of the children of the marriage was not Marshall’s. Certain admissions in the letters were Peddle’s and could nqf be taken as admissions by Mrs. Marshall, although they were found hidden in. her drawer, were signed by Peddle, and addressed to Mrs. Marshall. The letters had been written about September and October, 1938, after the child was born. Extracts from Letters Some of the extracts from the letters read by Mr. Maude were: “My Love, in all probability I will have the car for. the night; about time, isn’t it?” “No doubt someone would like to have a look at Judy. I am quite proud of the fact that she is ours.” Peddle was alleged to have indicated that if someone saw the child it would get back to Marjorie and annoy her. He said he had received a pleasant surprise when he told his mother and She had agreed on the course he was proposing to take, that of getting a divorce ana marrying Mrs. Marshall. Mr. Maude said the letters terminated with the usual erbsses. In another letter, said Mr. Maude, Peddle'said he was missing Judy and that? he was “so proud of her and I missed the feel of her s£ft face next to mine. Fondest love to Judy and yourself. The pullover was wonderful, sweetheart.”

There was also in. the letters, said counsel, an indication that the two had a meeting place in Awapuni road. ‘.'Mother is sending baby clothes for our little one, so you may expect them soon,” was another extract. “My very own sweetheart,” and “Yours always darling,” were, the endings of the letters.

Mr. Maude said the letters could not be taken as evidence against Mrs. Marshall. It was a significant faot, he thought, that neither Mrs. Marshall nor Peddle was in court. Petitioner’s Evidence

The petitioner said he had been in the habit of giving practically all hi& wages to his wife. He had been employed continuously during the past three years and prior to that had been on seasonal work for the greater part of the year. He was married to Vera Ethel Greentree in June, 1930. Since the marriage they had lived in Gisborne, having lived together until January 8, 1939. His wife had become particularly friendly with Peddle some two or three years ago. CHe knew that his wife went to town sometimes in Peddle’s car, but he took no exception to that.

The first indication of trouble, continued the witness, was when Mrs. Peddle had gone to him and said that her husband and his wife were going abbut together and were being talked about. The witness told Peddle that he wanted to part as friends before any damage was done and that it would be better if he kept away from witness’ house. The co-respondent had not been to his house to his knowledge, but he saw Peddle and his wife together in a car one Saturday morning. From what his wife had said he did not think there was anything in the affair.

When he went through 'a drawer looking for some chocolates he had given her at Christmas he discovered the letters, said the witness. He identified the writing as that of Peddle and recognised •thfe' 'letters

produced as those he had found in the drawer. At the top of several j of the letters appeared the address, “Alcuin, Motuhora,” the address of the co-respondent’s father. Marjorie was the Christian name of Mrs. Fred Peddle, jun. Presents to Mrs. Marshall On finding the letters, the witness communicated with a solicitor and instructed him tq write to Mrs. Marshall advising her that the letters had been found. She was still away and had not replied to the letter from his solicitor. fils wRe had gone away to Otolco a day before he discovered the letters. The witness did not want his wife to go away oh. that occasion because there were three children, aged eight, six and four years, who required looking after. He would have had his holidays within a short time and would have been able to look after the children while she was away. When his wife went to Otoko she took the youngest child, Judy, with her. After finding the letters the witness recalled that his wife had received a number of presents, which she said, had been given to her by a brother and sister. When he saw her once after having found the letters she was at an hotel. He then learned that the presents she named she wanted back as they i had been given to her by Fred Peddle, Jun. The Fourth Child With each of the first three children the witness knew his wife was going to have a child, but in the case of the fourth child he knew nothing

until two and a-half months after. The fourth child was born in July. 1938. On leaving the nursing home he told her that he had saved up two weeks’ wages for her. His wife said it was not enough and that anyhow the bill was paid, showing him the receipt. The respondent told him that she had paid it out of money she had accumulated by doing a little dressmaking. When she went into the home, however, she said she had no money

When Mrs. Marshall left him he had to place the children in the Heni Materoa Plome and was forced to sell his home because he had no financial resources. In October or November, 1937, the two went to the Show and races together. His Honour: The case does not turn on the paternity of the child, but on the point of adultery.

He had asked his wife whose child the fourth one was, when they were both at the hotel later, and she said she would not commit herself. She had asked about a divorce, explaining that she was going to marry Peddle when the matter was cleared up. His wife had often said she wished her husband could afford a car and he often borrowed a lorry from his employer to take her out. There were no children by the corespondent’s marriage. To Mr. Blair, the petitioner said that during the past few years lie and his wife were quite good companions. On one occasion he spent a night away from home without informing his wife. Peddle was a sheepfarmer, and now was a saw-bench hand at Motuhora.

To His Honour, the witness said his wife had never made any admission of adultery. Evidence of Petitioner’s Sister Mrs. Catherine E. J. Robertson, a sister of the petitioner, said she was on friendly terms with his wife. On several occasions she had had conversations with Mrs. Marshall about Peddle. Mrs. Marshal# admitted having gone out with Peddle, and receiving letters from him, and said that she was very much in love with Peddle. She had mentioned that Peddle had given her presents, including a pair of pyjamas. The witness had asked her what she was getting the presents for and was told not to be so personal. In October or November, 1937, Mrs. Marshall told the witness that Marshall was going to cricket for the day and that she was going to go to Morere with Peddle. When asked by the witness how the children would fare during the day the respondent said that the elder ones could look after the younger ones. Mrs. Marshall had told the witness that she used to drive Peddle’s car and that each of them had a key to it. She had not told the witness about her fourth child until about three months before it arrived. She said that the witness should not ask questions when asked who was responsible for the child. The respondent said that she could not bring herself to tell the witness about her condition before. Purchase of Nightdress

Last June the respondent asked the witness to buy her a nightdress and went to her drawer and took out five £5 notes and a single pound note, giving the witness £l. The respondent refused to tell her where she got the money from, and the witness said it would not be from the dressmaking she did for she did not do much work and charged little.

When the respondent mentioned the purchase of a pram for Judy she told the witness she coukl have paid cash, but had thought better of it because Marshall might have become suspicious.

Cross-examined by Mr. Blair, the witness said she did not think it was the act of a good mother when she went off and left the children in the home alone. The petitioner and his wife were happy until the time Mrs. Marshall met Peddle.

Asked to indicate where the evidence was to be placed before the jury for consideration, Mr. Maude referred to an authority and claimed that there was sufficient evidence to show that adultery had taken place. The letters had been found in the respondent’s own drawer, and thei c was an admission to Mrs. Robertson that the respondent and co-respon-dent were corresponding. His Honour: In the absence of any indication of Mrs. Marshall s attitude towards Peddle. The case is clear against Peddle, but not against Mrs. Marshall.

The jury was dismissed for half an hour While His Honour debated the question, of evidence with counsel. His Honour doubted if there was evidence of opportunity, and Mr. Maude reviewed the evidence suggesting times when the alleged happening took place. His Honour said" lie had .no doubt but that Mr. Maude’s allegation was well founded and yet he doubted if he could properly allow the case to go before the jury. When Mrs. Robertson was recalled she said that the respondent told her that they had been for many drives at night alone, and never mentioned any third party in their company at all. (Proceeding.)