AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10736, 29 August 1913, Page 5

AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Per Press Association. Auckland, August 27. Proceedings in the divorce case, Paterson v. Paterson, were continued to-day, when Norman Brookes and John Davidson, private inquiry agents, gave farther evidence, and were cross-examined at length. John Paterson, petitioner’s young brother, under examination recounted happenings of the early morning of June 28th, his story bearing out that related in box on the previous day by petitioner. Petitioner opened the door on oonfrpnting respondent with co-respon-dent. Petitioner held him by the shoulder and said, “Look at him. Isn’s he a beauty?” . Witness said that after the scene described he went out for a motor-car, and on his return petitioner was for the second time ordering his wife out of the house.

His Honour: Did you not interpose—No. I should have thought you would have done, being a man. "However, go on. Witness proceeded to relate how he and petitioner followed respondent up in a oar, and offered to drive Iher to her motherls or sister’s or anywhere she wanted to go. His Honour: Did it not occur to you that no woman could be taken at two o’clock in the morning to her mother’s or to her sister’s, or to an hotel because she had been taken in adultery? Did it not occur to yon that for the sake of common humanity this woman should have had the shelter of her husband’s roof for the rest of the night?—No, Do you hot think so? —No. All I can say is that I hope and believe very few people will agree with you. Witness was subjected to a search ing cross-examination bv Mr Reed as to his share in, petitioner’s affairs. “Do you know how petitioner’s will was made before he was married?” asked counsel.

“No, replied witness, “I do not know that he made a will at all before he was married. ” Later he admitted that he knew that his brother had made a will after his marriage and altered it leaving all his property away from hie wife.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE,

Auckland, August 28.

The hearing of the suit for divorce brought by William Henry Paterson of his wife Mabel Kathleen Paterson and Gustav Kronfeld was continued at the Supreme Court. Counsel, in sketching the story of respondent's life,, said that she begged her husband over and over again to give her an allowance. Petitioner he said, was a man of means. Counsel was instructed that he was worth probably £30,000. Respondent also repeatedly begged petitioner, said Mr Reed, to let her have' a servant. He replied, however, “Who is to pay for one?” “So the bnsbandprept'his young wife in that house alone,” said Mr Reed “doing all the work in it hexself and depriving her of what most husbands would gladly give their wives, a woman to stay in the house with her. If what is alleged to have happened bad occurred at all, I save without the slightest hesitation,” declared counsel, “that petitioner richly deserved it, hut it did not occur.”

Respondent’s story of what took place in the house in Waterloo Quadrant on the night of June 28th, was outlined by Mr Reed, and substantiated later by Mrs Paterson in the witness-box, According to the joint statements, respondent on returning from the theatre entered the house and switched on the light in the hall She lit no other light. She then opened the front door Kronfeld came along. Respondent, it was stated, had only known corespondent about a fortnight or three weeks. When Kronfeld stopped at the gate, as stated, he was said to have remarked that Mrs Paterson was up late, whereupon she said she was going to retire as soon as she had fed the pony. Kronfeld pressed her to let him come in and help her feed the pony and see that everything was safe, and she then said, “Very well, then, come through the house.” They entered, walked downstairs, switching on the lights as they proceeded, went out into the yard, and respondent fed the pony. Mrs Paterson was sated to have pointed out to Kronfeld a short cut through ' the back and over the dividing wall to his father’s house. Respondent swore that she then parted from co-respon-dent and entered he House. Respondent stated that she assisted her husband and his brother to search the house, and that she herself switched on the lights as they proceeded from room to room. Respondent further declared that she endeavoured then to explain to petitioner what had really happened, but he would not listen to her, and was acting madly, and called out, ‘‘l saw a man get out of the window on to the balcony and jump over.” She also swore that after John Paterson had gone out he returned by the front door, and that she saw him unlock the door at the top of the washhouse stairs and heard him unlock the back. door on the floor below. v ’

Prior to calling respondent, Mr Reed referred to the evidence of corespondent taken on commission in Sydney. The evidence stated that co-respondent on going throng h found the washonse was left open, of course without the knowledge of Mrs Paterson. ’ ’ Kronfeld’s evidence went on to say that when respondent went upstairs after the feeding of the pony she looked the door. He waited outside in the yard for some time, and then opened the washhouse window and got inside. He was about to go upstairs when he heard a noise at the front door. He then got out of the washhouse window again as quickly as he could. Respondent had not in any way con* sen ted to his returning to the house oy remaining in it, nor was she aware he intended to return. Ho had never been alone with the respondent In a room at.any time, nor had there over been any familiarity between them. His object in returning was to try to persuade her to permit such familiarity, further statements in the evidence of Kron• fold included a denial that he had asked to be shot when he was captured, His version was that his captors came to him and said, “If you do not stand still wo will shoot.” Co-respondent said that Mrs Paterson was innocent, and htu htul no reason to believe she was other than a woman of honour. He felt that his action had indicted a very great wrong on respondent, and placed her In u wrong position. '

Mrs Rose Barker, proprietress of the Bella Vista' hoarding -bouse, was the next witness. She stated that on the evening of June 37th respondent was in the kitchen of witness’s house from about 5.50p.m. until about 7 p.m. Cross-examined, witness said that it was not true that-respondent came into the boarding-house.at 6.30 p.m. Ellen Simms, mother of the respondent, related how petitioner came to her house after the happenings >in Waterloo Quadrant in the early morning of June 38th, and told, her he had caught a man in his house. Witness protested later in the day about petitioner's action‘ in turning her daughter out in the night. She did not know the respondent had returned to the house and slept in the downstairs room.

Cross-examined, witness said petitioner had treated respondent very well, and had always been considerate and kind to herself.

Respondent’s case being closed, the court adjourned.