JURY FINDS FOR DIVORCE

Taranaki Daily News, 19 February 1931, Page 11

JURY FINDS FOR DIVORCE

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MAN ALLEGES WIFE’S ADULTERY •IS AGAINST EVIDENCE’ . (Finding that adultery had been committed, a. jury in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday decided in favour of Harold Neaves Austin on his petitjon for divorce against Violet Eliza Austin. William James Newell was eited as the co-respondent.. The jury took 45 minutes, to reach its verdict. On behalf of Newell Mr. C. H. Croker said notice would be given immediately to move for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of: evidence. This was supported by Mr. A. A. Bennett,. who.acted for Mrs. Austin. Mr. R. H. Quilliam, representing the petitioner, said lie took it the court would deal with the motion for a decree nisi on this, application. Mr. Justice Adams said the decree nisi would be made in the usual form, with coats against the co-respondent. On Mr. Bennett’s application an order for the wife’s costs waa made against: the petitioner. . ‘The jury- comprised' Messrs Charles Wheeler (foreman), George Pound, Herbert Inch, John Green, H. L. Autridge, L T. Stewart, E.' 0. Hooker, W. M. Anderson, L. G.* Innis, John Cavaney, P. A. Bulmer and C. Evans.

Outlining the case for the petitioner Mr. Quilliam said that Mr. and Mrs. Austin were married at Waverley on July 19, 1927, and lived at New Plymouth till about December,-1928. There were no children of the marriage, though Mrs. Austin had a little girl before the marriage. In December, 1928, Austin found it difficult to get. work in New Plymouth and went to Tangarakau, where he had since been working for the Public Works Department. PARTIES SEPARATED. Shortly after he left New Plymouth his wife took proceedings against him on the grounds: of cruelty and failure to maintain properly. The magistrate ordered a separation, and that' Austin should pay maintenance for hia wife. Mrs. Austin knew the reason for his going to Tangarakau. When asked to go she decided not' to, and since December, 1928, they had not lived together. Some time after the. proceedings for separation were taken in March, 1929, Mrs. Austin went to live in a four-roomed house on the corner of Aubrey and Mt. Edgecombe Streets, Now. Plymouth. She . was still there, together with her mother, Mrs. Murray, Newell and two or three children. . It was specifically claimed that adultery took place in July, 1930. The evidence- would show that that adultery must have continued from September, 1920, till the present time. The evidence was convincing < and clear. Fortunately there were two witnesses who could testify .to the relations between Newell and Mrs. Austin. Mrs. Austin’s sifter, Miss. Ada, Ridley, had lived in the house from September, 1929, till just before last Christmas. She would say that Mrs. Austin and Newell occupied the same bed for a considerable period, but after the divorce papers were served Newell went; into another room. Even then, however, Mrs. Austin would go to his bed. Another witness was William Edward Walker,-who visited the house frequently in July, 1930. He would say that the relations of Newell and Mrs. Austin were those of husband and wife. It was Walker’s custom when leaving the house at night to look into their room to say "good-night.” He would see them in the same bed. W. F. Southam, the bailiff who served the papers, would say that he had seen Mrs. Austin and Newell in each other’s company a good deal. Newell had been separated from his wife for a long period, and paid maintenance into the court. PETITIONER gives evidence. After giving evidence on the lines of Mr. Quilliam’s opening address petitioner was subjected to a rigid cross-exam- ■ inatjon. j Mr. Bennett: In December, 1929, you were sentenced to one month’s imprison.ment. for being in arrears with maintenance, the warrant being suspended on • condition you made a payment ? 1 Austin: . I can’t remember. ‘ In July, 1930, proceedings were taken against you and are, still pending ■ I can’t rememberAustin admitted he drank, but not to .excess. He denied the real object of the present proceedings -was to nullify his liability ;for maintenance. He had sometimes got into Arrears. He remembered pleading guilty in July, 1930, to the use of obscene language. To Mr. Croker: On the occasion of the charge of obscene language he had just come from his wife’s house. Counsel: Did you not say to your mother-in-law that you would make it well worth her while if she could get you, evidence against her daughter. Austin: No, I did not. Ada-Ridley said that when she went to the house it* was occupied by Mrs. Austin, Newell, Mrs. Murray, witness’ brother, Mary (a child) and a baby. They told her, to say nothing about Mrs. Austin and Newell sleeping together. On one occasion Newell gave Walker a. thrashing.• . 1 . . Mr. QuilliamSo he did not come back? Witness: He didn’t come back for a second one., » . . In September Mrs. Austin was sick. Mrs. Austin called Newell “Dad” and he called her “Vi.” Mr.-Bennett: Since your quarrel with . your sister and your leaving Aubrey Street you have been living in the tame place as Walker? Witness: Yes. As man and wife?—No. OBJECTION SUSTAINED. Mr. Quilliam raised an. objection to such a question and the judge sustained his objection. She quarrelled with Mrs. Austin, said witness, because she threatened to “tell Harold the way . Mrs. Austin and Newall- were carrying on.” She did not know whether Walker was a married man. She and he lived in the same place with her baby. i Mr. Bennett: When did you decide to change, your evidence?—l was not going to go on any s;de. Is it not a fact that before the quarrel you admitted that Austin’s allegations were untrue? Some difficulty was experienced in obtaining an answer to this question. Witness said she did not understand it. Finally the judge suggested that witness was entitled to be told -he circumstances under which she was alleged to have made the statements. On being reminded by Mr. Bennett, witness recalled going to Mr. Croker’s Office with Mrs. Murray. Mr. Bennett; Did you not say then that to your knowledge no illicit relations took place between Mrs. Austin and Newell ?-t-Ycs, I did say that in Mr. Croker’s office.

Did you not say there was no opportunity for illicit relationship with-

out your knowledge and that of Mrs. Murray?—Yes, I did. And that Mrs. Justin slept with you? —Yes, she did sleep with me. TELLING LIES ADMITTED. In reply to further questions witness said she told Mr. Greiner lies at Mr. Croker’s office at the suggestion of Newell. She admitted she kept company with Walker. Mr. Bennett: And he arranged to meet you at the registry office? Witness (after hesitating) : Yes, he did. But he did not turn up?—No. /fo Mr. Croker: The only time she had told lies about this ease was in counsel’s office. She remembered Walker being arrested. On one occasion Walker said that unless they let him in he would go to Tangarakau and tell Austin what was going on. Mrs. Newell denied to Walker that there had been adultery. Mr. Croker: Walker’s object in going to Tangarakau was to have Newell put out of the house?—Yes. While Newell was there there was no room for Walker? —Yes. And that was the real cause of the trouble ? —No. Not now, but at the time?—No. WALKER CROSS-EXAMINED Cross-examined by Mr. Bennett, Walker said he was a married man. He denied he had arranged to marry Miss Ridley at the registry office. _ He had gone under various names, including that of Williams. His arrest in August was on two charges of false pretences by fraudulently obtaining board. . He admitted a list of previous convictions, the offences including false pretences, theft, forgery and uttering. He 'denied that shortly before his arrest he had suggested to Mrs. Newell that she should turn Newell out and take him in. ' , To Mr. Croker-. It would be about 9.30 p.m. on July 2 when I saw Mrs. Austin apd Newell in bed. Counsel said that on July 1,2 and 3 Newell was working on an overseas boat till 10 o’clock each night. Witness still maintained Newell was in bed early on the night of July 2. THE CASE FOR MRS. AUSTIN. Opening his case, Mr. Bennett said tbe main allegation was adultery on July 2, 1930, and on divers occasions up

to July 23. Counsel maintained that Austin’s evidence had carried them no distance on the adultery allegation because he was; not in the house. The jury had seen Miss Ridley and Walker in the box; counsel was content to leave the matter there in the meantime. Mrs. Austin definitely and emphatically denied that adultery had taken place with Newell or anyone else. Newell had been in the position of hundreds of other men who were obliged to take board with a private family. Giving evidence, Mrs. Austin said she took the cottage on May -13, 1929. She had not invited Newell to live there. It was on her return from a visit to her sister at Waverlej that her mother told her she had taken Newell as a boarder. -She? occupied one front room, and Newell, the other. When her sister came up she slept with witness and on her brother Ernest’s arrival in March, 1930, he slept in Newell’s room. Mrs. Murray occupied the back room. From March to September the rooms were occupied in this way. It was a lie that adultery had occurred, that she and Newell had occupied the same room and that she was accustomed to going into Newell’s bed. They had never been alone in the house together. They had been to the races together, to the pictures and to euchre parties. If they went for a walk there was always her sister or some other third, party present. It was her mother who collected the board money from Nevyell. It was untrue that she had invited Walker to live at the house, that she' had had a miscarriage, and that she had referred to Newell as her husband.

To Mr. Quilliam witness admitted that Newell did work about the garden and chop the •wood.

MISCONDUCT DENIED.

Ernest Thomas Lawrence Ridley, aged 16, said Newell came to the house to live a few days after witness arrived from Wellington. He slept in the double bed with witness. This arrangement continued until witness. went to sleep at the residence of Mr. Scott, his employer, on September 6, 1930. Mr. Bennett: Where did you sleep from your arrival in March till September?

Ridley: In the double-bed with Newell.

His Honour: Every night?—-Yes, sir. Mr. Bennett: And where did Mrs. Austin sleep?—ln the other front room with her sister Ada.

At no time, said witness, had he seen anything to suggest improper , conduct between Mrs. Austin and Newell.

Evidence supporting that given previously was given’by Mrs.'Mary Murray, Mrs. Austin's mother. Mrs. Austin had slept with Ada the whole time, she said, and Newell and Ernest slept together. To Mr. Croker: Austin went to see her about the case. Ho said that if she stuck to him he would pay her well. “No!’’ said Austin from his seat beside his counsel.

To Mr. Quilliam: She admitted Austin had been all right when he was not drinking. She had invited Newell to stay at the cottage because they had nothing to live on but the money he paid them. ■Called by Mr. Croker, Newell said he was working on the Westmoreland until 10 p.m. on July 1,2 and 3. On practically every night in July he had worked till 10 o’clock on a ship. “IT IS A DELIBERATE LIE.” Mr. Croker: And what do you say to Walker’s statement that you and Mrs. Austin committed adultery? Newell: I say it is a deliberate lie and that the man has deliberately perjured himself. Sydney Flood, secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Union, produced a file of the Taranaki Daily News to show that the s.s. Westmoreland was at New Plymouth from July 1 till early on the morning of July 4. The records showed that on July 1 and 2 Newell worked oh the ship from 6 to 10 p.m. At the close of this evidence Mr. Croker suggested the case against the co-respondent should be withdrawn from the jury. The only evidence against him was that of Ada Ridley and Walker, who, he said, contradicted one another. His Honour admitted those witnesses had been seriously shaken on crossexamination, bpt the point was whether their evidence should not be placed before the jury for its opinion. Mr. Bennett supported the application, but his Honour decided to send the ease to the jury. In summing up the judge eaid the evidence of Ada Ridley and Walker appeared to have been shaken in crossexamination and was in direct conflict with the evidence on behalf of Mrs. Austin, unless her witnesses had deliberately perjured themselves.