PATERSON DIVORCE CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 99, 30 August 1913, Page 2

PATERSON DIVORCE CASE.

VERDICT FOR RESPONDENT. [Per Press Association.'] Auckland, August 99. The hearing of the suit for divorce brought by William Henry Patereon against Mabel Kathleen Paterson and Grustav Kronfeid, co-respondent, was .'oncluded at the Supreme Court before Judge Edwards and a jury of twelve. Summing up, his Honor said that the proof of Kronfeld's alleged visit to respoudent's house at 6.20 p.m., on June 22, war; absolutely essential do the whole of the petitioner's case, because only on the truth of that allegation did the truth oi what came ifterwards depend. Petitioner's witnesses had said that the co-respondent went, to the houso alter midnight, that Mrs Paterson was not at the door, which v, as closed, the house being in. darkness, and that Kronfeid had walked straight in at the- door as if someone was waiting there to admit him. On that the whole supeistructure of petitioner's case depend-' dd. As to whether Kronfeid was &t\ lhe hou&e at,, 6.20 p.m., His Honor,; directed the Jury's attention to .the • fact that there i was no evidence of the twO private detectives. on one hand, and on the other that of Mrs Pater ton (to which the jun might attach little importance), and in addiiion to that of the proprietress and cook from the Vista. The two detectives, His Honor went on, hopelessly diffused, in the details they had given as to the visit Kronfeid was Mated, to. have made at 6.20 p.m., in-view of the contradictory evidence . of the detectives and the witnesses. -from the boardinghouse that respondent wa» there f/om six o'clock that evening, was it possible for-the jury • to say Kronfeid had been at respond--: eut's house at 6.20 p.m., or that Mrs Paterson did not go in next door at' j. 50 p.m.? If not, it seemed to His Honor inipossible for the jury to say that respondent wac amity. Referring to the actions of petitioner uad his brother on being admitted to the house, His Honor asked why, if the door were not locked, they did not *oarch the lower part of the house instead of confining their attention to' the billiard-room and bedroom. For Vlrs Paterson to have admitted Kronfeid to the house at all, His Honor continued, was highly indiscreet, bu< indiscretion was rot adultery, anrt >erfecth. virtuuiis women would very often commit indiscreet ads. The jury musu assume the respondent to be innocent until she had been proved guilty. There was no guilt in taking Kronfeid to the stable whilst she fed the pony. He went on to pass some severe strictures upon the profession of the inquiry agents in question, and the need for the closest scrutiny of their evidence, as it was upon it, he said, that the case depended. His Honor then commented upon the part played in the case of petitioner's brother. As to the action of petitioner in turning the wife out of the house on the night of the occurrence, he said that it was just as illegal as it was cruel. The law did not allow a men to be judge and jury in his'own case. The jury retired at 3.30 p.m., the issues put to them to decide being:— (1) Was the respondent guilty of misconduct with co-respondent? (2) Was co-respondent guilty of misconduct with respondent? After an absence of about an hour and a-half, the jury returned with a negative answer to each issue. A verdict was given for the respondent. The decision was unanimous. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The Court made an ordor for costs against petitioner on the highest scale.