RADLEY DIVORCE CASE

Southland Times, Issue 23306, 16 September 1937, Page 11

RADLEY DIVORCE CASE

FORMER SERVANT’S EVIDENCE JUDGE TO CONSIDER HIS DECISION (United Press Association) AUCKLAND, September 15. The adjourned action, in which the Solicitor-General intervened to oppose a decree nisi being made absolute, was resumed before Mr Justice Callan in the Supreme Court this morning. The petitioner, Geoffrey Squires Radley, a fruit and produce merchant, of Christchurch, obtained a decree nisi against his wife, Dorothy Whaley Radley, from Mr Justice Fair on November 16 last on the ground that a separation agreement entered into between the parties on August 26, 1932, . had been in full force and effect ever since. On behalf of the Crown, Mr V. R. Meredith intervened, alleging that the decree nisi was obtained contrary to natural justice of cause because of material facts being concealed from the court.

An admission that he took his wife to the pictures alone perhaps _l5 times when they were living apart in Christchurch was made in cross-examination by Radley today, but the reason he did so he said was to prevent her from committing suicide, as she had threatened.

Mr Meredith: Well, either you or Mrs Radley is definitely telling an untruth about those incidents. Petitioner: Yes. • Mr Meredith: In other words, one of you is lying. Petitioner: Yes, there can be no mistake about that.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH “MRS X” Questioned about “Mrs X” petitioner said she was a widow, and he first met her at a bridge party in Christchurch. It was some time later that correspondence began between them. “Mrs X was then in Auckland, but later went to Christchurch and looked after the children of petitioner’s brother. “I was not in love with ‘Mrs X’ at that time, but was getting that way,” said the petitioner. He added that while in England he corresponded with her, as he was hoping to marry her as soon as possible after his return to New Zealand in February 1936. He had arranged to discuss the position with her, also with her father. When he was leaving England he handed his wife’s return ticket and £5O to a Mr Wood to be given Mrs Radley after petitioner had sailed. His wife had never intimated that she was worried about his leaving her in England without a ticket. He had paid for her passage order before he left New Zealand. Re-examined by Mr Finlay, witness said he did not hand over the ticket because his wife was threatening to have him arrested, but because something was unnecessarily worrying her. STOOD UNDER COLD SHOWER The last witness was Barbara McGregor Wells, a married woman who, before her marriage, was in service for

three and a-half years in the Radley household. She told the court that Mrs Radley had a nasty temper. Sometimes she treated the children well, at other times badly. When the children were naughty they sometimes were put to bed for the day without anything to read. “One morning she thrashed the boy and stood him under a cold shower and put a handkerchief round his mouth to stop him from screaming,” witness said. “At that time the boy was about seven years old.” Witness said Radley protested against his wife’s treatment of the children whereupon Mrs Radley would become annoyed. Sometimes she struck him. This closed the case for the petitioner and Mr Finlay began his address. He cast grave doubts upon the veracity and genuineness of the diary entries and upon their value generally as evidence. His Honour interrupted with the observation that the diary had all the appearance of a genuine contemporaneous thing noted day by day, recording many little things of interest and commenting in an entirely natural fashion upon the various matrimonial affairs His Honour said he could find nothing about the diary entries to suggest that some of them, at any rate, were made later than they appeared. This fact had made a certain impression upon him as common sense prompted. Counsel said that if certain statements in the diary dealing with incidents about them both were shown to be wrong then the diary and all its contents would have to go. Mrs Radley was the victim of mania, he said, a woman determined to gain her ends by whatever means she thought fit to defeat her husband’s desire for freedom.

Counsel said that on the evidence petitioner was entitled to a decree absolute.

Mr Meredith said Radley’s treatment of his wife was reprehensible to a marked degree and his conduct had been calculated in most cases to force him to agree to a separation. There was little doubt that because of the way in which the diary was used during the hearing of the case its entries were capable of being accepted as evidence. There appeared to be no doubt as to their genuine character and there certainly had been elicited in the court evidence to show that Radley should not succeed on his application for a decree absolute.

His Honour said he would take time to consider his decision.