AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10737, 30 August 1913, Page 8

AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

PETITION DISMISSED,

Per Press Association. Auckland, August 29. The hearing of the suit for divorce brought by William Heniy Paterson against Mabel Kathleen Paterson and Gustav Kronfeld, the co-respon-dent, was oonoladed at the Supreme Court before Justice Edwards and a jury of*l2. Summing up. his Honour said that proof of Kronfeld's alleged visit to respondent's house at 6.20 pm. on June 27th was absolutely essential to the whole of the petitioner's case. If that had been disproved, the petitioner's' case crumbled away, because only on the truth of the allegations did the truth of w'hat came afterwards depend The petitioner's witnesses had said that the co-re-spondent went to the house after midnight, that Mrs Paterson was not at the door which was closed, the house being in darkness, and that Kronfeld had walked straight in at the door as if someone was waiting 'there to admit him. On that the whole superstructure of petitioner's case depended. As to whether Kronfeld was at the house at 6.20 p m., his Honour directed the jury's attention to the fact that there was the evidence of two so-called private detectives on the* one hand, and on the ether that of Mrs Paterson, to which the jury might attach little importance, and in addition that of the proprietress and cook from the Bella Vista. The two detectives, his Honour went on, were They differed in the details they had given as to the visit Kronfeld was stated to have made at 6.20 p.m. In view of th 3 contradictory evidence of the detectives and the witnesses from the boarding-house, that respondent was there from before six o'olock that evening, was it possible for a jury to say thai; Kronfeld had been at the respondents house at 6 20 p.m., or that Mrs Paterson did not go in next door at 6 30? If not, to his Honor impossible for thejury to say that the respondent was guilty. Referring to the actions of the petitoner and his brother on being admitted to the house, his Honour asked why if the doors were not locked they did not search the lower part of the house instead of confining their attention to the bil-liard-room and bedroom ? For Mrs Paterson to have admitted Kronfeld to the house at all, his Honour continued, was-highly indiscreet, fcnt indiscretion was not adultery and a perfectly virtuous woman would very often commit indiscreet aotions. The jury must assume that the respondent was innocent until she had been proved guilty. There was no guilt in taking Kronfeld to the stable while she fed the pony. Questions of urobabilities and impiobabilities had been raised but the jury must not decide on a probability. They might think that probably the respondent had committed a matrimonial offence but they could not say so unless satisfied that each step in the evidense had conclusively proved it beyond any doubt. In. that case they must "find that the respondent was guilty and that two witnesses from the boarding-house had not told the truth, and furthermore, that the evidence of the two private detectives was true. As to the latter, his Honour did not know hew the jury was going to say. He went on to pass some severe strictures upon the profession of inquiry agent,, and the need for the closest scrutiny of their evidence, as it was upon it, he said,- that the case depended. His Honour then oommenfced upon the part played in the case by the peti-. tioner's brother. As to the action of the petitioner in throwing his wife out of the house on the night; of the occurrence, he said it was just as illegal as it ,was*»oruel. The law did not allow a man to be judge and jury in his own case. In conclusion, his Honour said the jury could not look upon any of the witnesses as impartial exoeptthe two ladies from Bella Vista whose evidence in his opinion was all-important. J The jury retired-at 3.30 p.m , the issues put to them to decide being:—I—Was the respondent guilty of misconduct with the co-respondent and 2—Was the co-respondent guilty of misconduct with respondent After an absence of about half an hour the jury returned with a negative answer to each issue—a verdiot for the respondent. The decision was unanimous. The petition was accordingly dismissed ,and the court made an order for costs against the petitioner on the highest scale, and certified to extra allowance for counsels fees of £ls 15s for eaor- of the three extra days of the trial. Costs regarding the issue or the coramissioi to take co-respondent's'evidence were also entered up against the petitioner On the middle scale.