AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 96, 27 August 1913, Page 3

AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE.

HAPPY FOR TWELVE MONTHS. [Per Press Association.] Auckland, August 26. A Mii: for divorce brought by William Henry Paterson, farmer, of Auckland, against Ins wife, Mabel Kathleen Paterson, on the ground of misconduct with Gustav Ivronfeld, engineer, of Auckland, was commenced before Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve at the Supremo Court, this morning. There was no appearance of tlie co-respondent, who, it was stated, had left New Zealand. In opening the da.se for petitioner, Mr McGregor pointed out that the respondent had filed an answer to the petition denying the allegation of adultery, but the co-respondent had neither entered ah appearance nor filed an answer. His evidence, however, had been taken in Sydney. The parties, counsel said, were married at St. Sepulchre’s Church, Auckland, qji Juno 28, 1909, when petitioner was 3J years of age and respondent 29. They lived together quite happily for twelve months.

Petitioner in evidence, stated that their marital relations ran along very smoothly till witness had occasion to remonstrate with his wife about her friendliness with another man. Three times he complained and finally there was a serious row. On Juno 28 last, witness said that he told his wife he was going to Waikato for several days. He left by the 4.15 train and went as far as Penrose. There he met his brother in a motor car, and returned to Mt. Eden to his brother’s house. According to arrangements there was a telephone message about midnight from detectives watching petitioner’s house in Waterloo Quadrant, and witness and his brother motored from Mount Eden to Princess Street. On arriving at the house they saw a dim light issuing from a window. The light was turned out after some five minutes. Detectives were posted one at each of two gates giving access to the section from Waterloo Quadrant, and witness unlocked the front door, but is was Chained from the inside and could not be opened more than a few inches. Mrs Paterson called out: “Wha’s there?” Witness replied, ‘Tin here; open the door.” The door was opened and witness exclaimed: “Where’s the man?”

Hoi: reply was; “Don’t bo mad; there’s no man here.”

Witiles retorted: “There is a man here, produce him,” His brother turned on the and witness and hjs brother proceeded to make,a search for' the man they suspected of being in the house, and then their attention was directed to the back yard. They raced -down,- following in the track of two detectives, and found Kronfeld in their custody. “Shoot me;' shoot, me,'old man. 1 implore you to shoot me!” cried Kronfelcl but jwitnesk took him back to the house and one of the detectives gave him au overebtit to put on.

When confronted with the man, Mrs Paterson declared : “I don’t know him. I have never seen him before!” Kronfeld continued with nn appeal to shoot him. “Shoot me!” he implored, “give me a gun and I’ll shoot myself!” He offered her what money he had on him at the time, and she refused it. She then left the house. “For God’s sake don’t tell my mother,” she implored. Witness, however, did go to his wife’s parents. Continuing, petitioner said that in the morning he found some articles of clothing in a neighbor’s foWlyard. These he placed in the safe in his office in his house, but after getting his own breakfast he found that they were missing. Ho was llnahlo to discover how entrance had been effected. Subsequently his wife told him she had done no wrong, and reminded him that it was the anniversary of their wedding.

“Yes,” he replied, “and this is how you celebrate it.” She left that night with her relatives, and he had since been allowing her £3 a. week.

Mr McGregor: Did she say at any time that Kronfeld was passing, and after talking to her, offered to assist her with feeding a pony? Witness: No. What explanation did she make? She said she was at the door whei Kronfeld was passing. He- stopped, and after talking a while, pressed her to let him come in. She admitted that she had done wrong, and asked mo tr. pardon her. I said there Was no pardon. She said she wanted me, and iskod me whether I had ever done anything wrong. I replied that 1 liar never come at anything like that, and

the interview ended. Petitioner was cross-examined a great length in an endeavor to prove the appeals by respondent to her husband for a servant were refused, that she had been left too frequently alone in spite of protestations, and that on one occasion petitioner had gone away, leaving her sick and unattended. The examination of the inquin agent, Brooks, who corroborated the statements of petitioner regarding tin 'Happenings of the night of the 2uth. concluded the hearing for the day, and the Court rose with the case unfinished