MIXED LOVE AFFAIRS.!

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12015, 18 March 1920, Page 2

MIXED LOVE AFFAIRS.!

TWO MEN AND TWO MAIDS. Hamilton, March 5. A remarkable story of a Maori’s matrimonial adventures was related to Mr Justice Cooper in the Supreme Court to-day, when Thomas Savage sought a divorce from his wife, Edith Savage, on the ground of her adultery with Reuben Connor. ’A sum'of £IOOO damages was claimed from the co-respondent. The respondent did not file an answer, but in his answer to the pleadings correspondent said that he was a halfoaste and respondent a fnilblooded Maori, and that about .4909 they were married according to "Maori custom. They lived together up to October, 1919, when she left him, and did not return. Continuing, the co-respondent said that in March, 1916, they quarrelled, and respondent went to Thames, where she married the petitioner. After living with the petitioner for one day she returned to co-respondent. Co-respondent also alleged that petitioner at the time of his marriage was well aware that respondent had married co-respondent according to Maori custom.

In opening for the petitioner, Mr Carter said it was a most singular casef. Respondent and petitioner had been friendly since childhood, and after petitioner was wounded at Gallipoli he returned to Thames, and married her in 1916. At that time he was ignorant that his wife was in any way connected with corespondent, After a happy honeymopn of four days* petitioner and respondent went to see the latter’s mother. On hearing of the marriage the mother became very angry, and refused to let her daughter go with him, threatening ro commit suicide if she went. Petitioner was advised to let matters drift for a while which he did. Subsequently he found his wife was living with co-respondent. Armed with his marriage certificate, he visited co-respondent, and tried to explain the position, but Connor became very aggressive and wanted to fight. Continuing, counsel said petitioner’s wife appeared, and told him not to make a scene and she would go to him as soon as she could get away. Being reclasoed as tit petitioner wus sent to France, where he was wounded again. While convalescent petitioner mot an English girl, with whom he became very friendly. When applying for permission from the authorities to marry her he related his experience in New Zealand, and told them his New Zealand wife was living with another man. He was told he would have to wait six months while the authorities investigated the matter. At the end of that timelie was given written permission to marry. He married the English girl, and brought her to New Zealand, Counsel went on to say tliat on returning to New Zealand, petitioner received a letter from the respondent asking him to divorce her, and to meet her and discuss the matter. He did not answer the letter, and later was arrested for bigamy. He pleaded guilty, and after relating the whole of the facts to the Court was fined £5, and allowed sis mouths to pay the fine.

Petitioner gave evidence on ’ihe lines of counsel’s opening address, and stated that he told the military authorities he was married in New Zealand.

His Hon Jr: It is the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard. He told the authorities he was married, yet they gave him permission to marry an English girl. You swear you told the authorities you were married.

Petitioner: Yes, sir, but they did not take much notice. They laughed at me.

Cross-examined, petitioner said that he had nothing except his word to prove that he told the authorities he was married. He denied that he was aware at the time of his marriage that tis wife had lived with Connor.

Mr Gillies characterised the claim for damages as one of the most impudent claims ever made in any Court of Justice. He said that Savage know of the Maori marriage, and that his wife was known as Mrs Connor. He alleged that petitioner and respondent had been drinking together when they were married, and that when she came to her senses she returned to Connor, Respondent denied that she knew petitioner as a child. She had lived with Connor about twelve years, and had three children to him. She first met petitioner after qarrelling with Gdnnor in March, 1916, and they went to the Thames, where they were married four days later. Before the marriage she told the petitioner of Connor, and everybody was calling her Mrs Connor. While at the Thames, Savage gave her liquor. Since the marriage she had come to believe ho married her for her money, as she paid all expenses, even for the certificate and ring. Had she known of his English marriage she would heielf have sued for a divorce. Colonel E H Northcrott expressed the opinion that the question of petitioner’s marriage in New Zealand could not have been known to the legal department of the New Zealand Forces in England. Co-respondent stated that he and resopndent had been married according to Maori custom for about twelve years. He did not know of her marriage to Savage until the day after the ceremony, when her mother brought her home, and he resumed cohabitation with her. Co-respon-dent mentioned that his wife was a Mormon, to which counsel retorted, ‘ 'Evidently so. ” (Laughter). After a short retirement the jury awarded petitioner one farthing damages. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three mouths, was' granted The question of costs was reserved.