SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 956, 5 March 1917, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE SITTINGS. A WIFE'S PETITION. Before his Honour Sir John Denniston, to-day, Esther Valentine applied for a dissolution of her marriage with Tom Shaw Valentine, picture proprietor, of Kaikoura, on the grounds of adultery. Mr Johnston appeared for the petitioner and Mr Hunt for the respondent. Esther Valentine, the petitioner, stated that she married the respondent in 1905. Two children were born of the marriage. One of these was dead; the other was a boy born in 1906. Up till recently they had lived at Kaikoura and their married relations had been happy. In March last she engaged a maid named Vera Schroeder to look after the boy, who was an invalid. The maid siept in the same room with the little boy. Petitioner usually attended to the boy during the night, but she noticed that on one or two occasions that her husband got up and attended/ to him. Her suspicions having become aroused she decided to keep awake to see if there was anything in them. As a result, her suspicions were confirmed. This happened on a Saturday and she left Kaikoura at 9 o'clock on the Monday morning. She told the girl that she would have to leave the house at once. She remained with her husband on the Saturday and the Sunday. Her husband gave her £4 towards her fare. She went straight to her parents in Dunedin. She had no recollection of having told her husband that she would forgive him. The shock had upset her and affected her nerves. In Dunedin she instructed solicitors to take proceedings about a fortnight after. Her husband, however, came to her parents' house and was let in by witness's mother. He came in and said to witness: "What's all this about?" She replied, "Oh,.you know what it's about." He then asked her if she would go back, but she refused, saying that what she had sieen would always come between them. She added that she was about to take proceedings for divorce. He said, "Don't do that. Think of what the people of Kaikoura think about me." Since that she had not seen him. Later she received a notification from her solicitors to say that the proceedings would be postponed until she was in a better stale of health and until all chances of reconciliation were gone. Two months later she came with her parents to Christchurch and put the matter in Mr Johnston's hands. To Mr Hunt: Up to the last year or so she got on very well with her husband. She was pianiste for his picture show and had worked very hard. The litle boy took fits and required constant attention. She believed Vera Schroeder to be about 18 years of age. Prior to this witness had been in indifferent health, being run down. She never had asked the husband to attend to the boy. She, and she alone, got up to look after the child. So far as she remembered the child had had no fits on the nights in question. She understood that her husband had arranged for a Mr Bcardsley to meet her, but sffe had made her own arrangements. She went to the Trocadero to stay. There her brotfier had arranged for her. She did not know that her husband had arranged for her to stay at the Terminus Hotel. He had rung

her up the next day to see if she had arrived safely. He also asked about the boy's health. She had arranged just about that time to go for a holiday. She did not part on good terms with Vera Schroeder. She did not tell her that she was going for a holiday and expected her (Schroeder) to come back in about three weeks to stay again with them. She was seen off at Kaikoura by two gentlemen, mutual friends of her and her husband, and by her husband. She had told the two gentlemen mentioned all about the occurrence. These were (he only friends she had. She told nobody that she would be back in three weeks. She realised the charge that she was making against (he girl Schroeder. Her solicitors in Dunedin had told her father that she was too hysterical to go on with the proceedings. She left everything to the lawyers. That was the reason her petition had not been filed till she came to Christchurch.

To Mr Johnston: She was not imagining anything. David Joseph Norden, father of the petitioner, stated that respondent had described to him the incident seen by his wife. The particulars agreed with the hitter's story, except in an essential detail. Respondent asked that witness use his influence to get Mrs Valentine to return to him. Witness replied that she must use her own discretion regarding that. Mr Hunt said the defence would be a denial of the petitioner's allegation. His Honour said the defence would have to meet respondent's admission to Norden.

Tom Shaw Valentino, the respondent, said that he had not gone into the child's room to give the lad attention until the last two months or so. His wife's description of what she saw when she entered the room was not correct. His wife had arranged to leave- for a holiday about this time. She was to be away for three weeks. Next day he telephoned to the hotel in Christchurch where he had made arrangements for her to stop. Hearing nothing from Dunedin he went there. Norden's version of their conversation was not correct.

To Mr Johnston: It wasn't because he wanted to arrange about some music that he telephoned his wife. To the court: He had not a very clear recollection of his conversation with Norden. His wife had never mentioned her reasons for leaving the house. In giving judgment, his Honour said that had the case rested on the testimony of the petitioner alone he would have had grave hesitation in attaching full credit to it. Her evidence was given intelligently and honestly; nevertheless, she might have been mistaken. This left him in a state to accept an intelligent denial from the respondent. There was, however, the definite evidence of the wife's father, who evidently had shown no desire to -precipitate this unfortunate breach of relations. This evidence had to be accepted as conclusive in the absence of respondent's satisfactory contradiction. Respondent's explanation of the incident was a very lame one. He was entirely satisiied with the evidence of the petitioner and Norden, and would grant a decree nisi, to be made absoMite in three months. AFTER MANY YEARS.

A petition, filed by Edith Jones for dissolution of her marriage with Henry Edward Jones, was also heard. There was a cross-petition filed by the husband. Mr 0. T. J. Alpers appeared for the husband, and Mr S. G. Raymond, E.G., with him, Mr Goodman, for the petitioner. The cross-petition was taken first, Mr

Raymond intimating that he did not propose opposing it. Henry Edward Jones, the crosspetitioner, said that he married the respondent on April 28, 1897. There were three children of the marriage. Early in the marriage differences/ arose between him and his "wife, usually on money matters. After the birth of the second child his wife went away, hut came back later. She finally left him in May or June, 1911. She went to nurse her mother, and never came back. He had never spoken or written to her siii"\ To Mr Raymond: His vi ha.2 maintained herself ever since. Henry Cyril Jones, son of last \ .'- ncss, also gave evidence Mr Raymond said that he did not propose to call evidence. The parties could not get on together. The husband accused her of extravagance, and she accused him of meanness. At His Honour's suggestion the petitoner Edith Jones was called. She said she had left her husband with the intention of not returning. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted, costs as per scale against the husband on the petition and counter-petition.