SUPREME COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume CVIII, Issue 16883, 2 August 1919, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

gIMARUy FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1919. (Before His Honour Mr Justice ' Herdmaii). . ■ The sessions of the Supreme, Court »vere continued in, Timaru yesterday Mare His Honour Mr Justice- Herdtiian. ' IN DIVORCE. STRANG v. STRANG. Te divorce sint, Crawford Strang v. Lilian Strang and "William Henry Hunt, plumber (co-respondent), was continued. Mr A. C. Hanlon, with him. Mr J. Jfimslii!, appeared for the petitioner. Mr (.). T. Alpers for 'the respondent, and Mr AY. D. Campbell for the co-respondent! Tho case was heard before the following jury:—James Allport (forem.m), S'oil Manning, 11. W: McConac'nV, W. ,r. Shepherd. A. Coker, AV. J. Robson, R M. McOskerie, A. Roid, R. R. Jlandie. AV. H. Allan, F. Blanch etc and J. S. Keene. DEFENCE CONTINUED. Tiio evidence for the petitioner find ibe respondent was concluded the previous day. Mr Campbell now called evidence "for the co-respondent. Geo. Hilton, secretary to the Timaru !<"ire Brigade, said that on April 14 917, there was a firo in Trafalgar

Street, and Hunt was at; it. During tho ; whole year Hunt uab only absent from two practices. , ' v To Mr Hanlon: Witness could provo thq.t on about twenty evenings during ; 1917 that Hunt was at the Fire Station ' till 8.30 of an evening. After that le ( was free to 'go where lie liked. -If Hunt ( attended the Trafalgar Street fire before 10.30 p.m. he would he markedpr'eßent whether he had actually assisted at the fire or not. William Henry Hunt, the co-respon-dent, said he was a plumber, and lor about fifteen years was a member of the Timaru Fire Brigade, of which he was second in command for about four years.' He lived on the Fire Station with his family. On April 14, 1917, witness was at a fire in Trafalgar Street. Witness beard Mrs AVall say the previous day thai .while this lire was on he was locked in her house with Mrs Strang. This was absolutely intrue. "Witness was in- partnership in his business "with Mr Gurrie, and they used to do a fairly large business. What witnesses had said concerning witness being at Mrs, Strang's place morning, noon, and night was incorrect. Witness's youngest child was born on May 2, 1917. At this time his wife wa£ in very poor health, and this was a considerable trial to witness. Remembered Mrs Wall meeting him in the street one day when she asked him to go to her house and fix up her sink and a tap. At the same time she introduced him to Mrs Straticr. Witness saw the agent for Mrs Wall's house that same day and he told witness to do the' Work.

1 "Witness went up in the afternoon to see what required doing, ami Airs. \Vali | invited Mm- to tnkc a cup oL tea, Mrs Wall, Mrs Strang, and witness being ; present. They talked about the Firfc. i Station and it was arranged that he should show 'chem over it at oiight. Mrs •btrang kept tlie. appointment but Mrs Wall did not.', Witness's wife was on the premises that night, net take Mrs Strang upstairs to see-her, as 'his wife was not'well and usually went to bed early.-' He presumed she would he in .bed when Mrs Strang was on the station. Witness met Mrs Strang a, day or two after this near the "Assembly .Booms and took her to see his wife. An intimacy developed between the two womeu. who became great friends, the friendship being beneficial to lis, wife. Witness' had ' only seen Mrs Strang at Mrs Wall's house once or twice when lie took a message from, his wife. He knew that Mrs Strang was looking for a hous.©, that she wa» the wife of a soldier," and witness told her of a house belonging to his father which would probably suit her. At this time witness had two children and bis wife ~was within a few days of having ' another. Mrs Strang took the houset which witnoss had told lier of in Ix2- '• Cren Street, and witness and bis pare- I ner,made some improvements to the! fittings in it. When repairing the roof witness was assisted by'bis father. At the Fire Station where witness lived there was practically no ground for n garden, so witness made arrangements," to use the ground at the back of Mrs Strang's house for a. garden,-, the arrangement. being made ■'between witness, his wife, and Mrs Strang. From this bit of ground witness kept his family in vegetables, Mrs Strang had some, witness's father some, and also the othei- family on the Fire Station.While this, arrangement was on -"-itness's wife and Mrs Strang exchanged visits frequently, and witness's children had stopped with Mrs Strang. When • witness "left the. Fire Brigade'he lived in a house next door but one .to Mrs Strang, in LeCren Street. The house belonged to his mother. This was in ■ 1918. In 1917 witness and his wife ai d Mrs Strang went for a trip 'to the North Island, the two women each hav- ' ing their respective infants with them. • The friendship between the two families always continued. There was a hole in ' the back, fence of' Mrs Strang's section ; and witness need to go'through this to ' get his gardening tools. Witness... became acquainted with. Mrs Strang's 'I sisters a,ud brothers,' and one of the - latter, Keith, he employed. Witness '. had spent late hours.at Mrs Strang's house with her brothers. He had never ■ at any time misconducted himself with. Mrs Strang. Witness heard of the dis- : turbance between Strang and his wife. ' On the following Sunday witness saw Strang and told him hi* would like to- ' speak to him, but Strang would take no '' notice'of him. [■ To Mr Hanlnn ■ The evidence against '" witness, in regard to misconduct with Mrs Strang, was a parcel of lies. Wit- ' < ness grew the vegetables in Mrs . 1 Straug's garden because it was bene- I ficual to him to do so. Witness had , made inquiry but could not get a. suit- ' able garden close to the Fire Station. ' Witness left the Firo Station for hia . i own personal reason. Ho denied that he ■ left the fetation on account of n,jeom'-"j-plaint of hie conduct with Mrs Strang. , He did not hear that there' was likelv ' ; to bo an inquiry into Ws conduct. He ■ left the Station because of a squa'obh* with, his neighbour, and not to avoid ah i, inquiry. AVlien he wont to Mrs Wall's house to repair the sink ho found- the • sink choked, had som« afternoon tta, and made an apnoirffrnent with the women to visit the Fir© Station that . night. Mrs Strang visited tho Station that night and witness took her home. | They did not walk arm-in-arm. Witness ! did not make another appointment with. • her that nijdit. Ha &i 4. not wish tfl doj;

so as lie Tins a married man. On lhe| day he went to mend the sink he taw | Mrs .Strang. Ho took her to see his wire because he thought sho would be a nice companion for, her. Witness denied having been in ,Mvs Strang's bed-sitting room except ■■when someone else was there also. He might have stood in the doorway,and spoken to her. What witnesses had said to the effect that witness and Mrs .'Strang had been in Mrs "Wall's hoijse alone, was untrue. I He could not say why the witnesses j should tell such untruths. "Witness had" never had an angry word with Mrs or Miss Wall, or Mrs Robson, and could think of no reason why thev should perjure themselves to 'get him into trouble. 7f their evidence were true he would own up to -it. It did room strange that so many people could be got to give evidence against innocent people. Witness denied haviug made a hole in the back of the corrugated ivon tence to get into Mrs Strang's section. The hole was already there. He would not say that the gardeniug and the plumbing took him to Mrs Strang's house on He had never gone to her house as late as halt-past ten. The latest he had ever been ihere was halt-past eight or nine o'clock, ard this was w lien he went to bee l er brothers, or to take his wife home after she had been x spending the evening there. The witness who said he had seen him there at . ten and" eleven o'clock was not telling-the truth. Mr Hanlon said it was peculiar' that not one of the witnesses had seen Mrs Hunt at Mrs Strang's nla'ce. -Witness could not account for this.' If Mrs .Hunt had objected to witness gardening'on Mrs Strang s section be wo'uld not have aone there. One night he stopped rather bite at Mrs Strang's house ■ drinking whisky with her brother He had never been oti the Fnv with Mrs Strang and tlie go-cart. He -was not in love with Mrs Strap?.., Mrs Strang used to cs.ll witness ••Eillie,;' while, her baby and her 23-year oM sister called him "Billie Huntie." Wit'iiCbS called' Mrs Strang "Lily.'' It was Mrs Hunt who suggested that-Mrs Stiang should call witnes's "Bilhe.'" Mrs Strang's 'ister Ruby had written to Mrs Strang a letter which she referred io,,"Billie Huntie." There was -also a reference in the letter to 27. Witness could not say what this referred to? There vas also a reference to r "Billie ,and the D S 0.."' but ,this did not refer to witness, but t 0 the,writer's boy who wis at the war! All that had 'been- ss,id about witness being -seen in Mrs Strang's bedroom and sitting-on . I er bed was untrue:- Witnessrand* Airs Strang had told the truth.* Those'v.hohad given -.contrary evidence -had ,told untruths: - , - ■ * To Mr Campbell: ■.Witness i had' left the 1< ire Station because . lie -and a man with whom he/had' work'ed there wore at loggerheads.' He had left of lus own accord. After witness, and Lis family and Mrs oaelr to Uinstchurch from their trip to" ( 'the Noi th "Island they had no row'as suggested. ~ < • „ This concluded the evidence. .' COUNSELS' ADDRESSES.', MR ALPERS FOR'RESPONDENT. Addressing the jui'j, Mr A/pei-s for ihe respondent, said ,t would tfd absurd lor Jinn to suggest tliat there had not been ioohs,h conduct on the part of lijs client—conduct which had given counsel tor tlie petit.oner opportunity for nak.usi: many amusing comments at cli, 3 expense 0 t the respondent. But he wanted them to put "aside all this, extraneous matter'and consider serious'v < v.M-ya.spea; ot the case. 'He'knew thev i ould do tlii-. [|; the slor; ,oi\ihe pc"-urioni-'r v.eic true there cou.d be no doubt that a, highly dishonourable and iieacherous act 1 had. been done to a s.oldier behind his back. Bat the petitioner's story was much exaggerated, and his counsel had brilliantly created an almospherc of com'edy with a view 'ln implicating 'the respondent. Thu •jin\ would, however, know- how to fist; this aside, and consider only the cold* plain facts, and give their 'verdict upon these. Counsel "then dealt with the evidence in the case. The petitioner was a'man of highly-strung'aud jealous temperament, one whom it was difficult for his wife t O . get on with, and lie imagined things and imputed motives, without justification. Mrs Strang denied that she had ever been other than faithful to her hushanrl- she dec'ared -her continued love tor hnii: and in the letter which had been read in Court t she/had appealed to him in a wav which must convince the,jury rhat -he. was; p &ood and virtuous wife, *.nxious to calm hen husband's fears and live in peace with him. The common dev ; ca of counsel had been resorted tc in mikinic one witness say that what another fald was a lie; hut <the.iury would sec that there was no serious contradiction between the evidence of the witnesses for the' wTiait motive the witnesses for the petitioner hive i" stntingMvhnt w>i*a im'tnie 9 Connse- said he was not going to embark cm an inouiry a-s to motives No one could tell what motives ni*>ved people at 'times. With a view to demenstrating ,the uurelia'hiliCy of the evidence ojven "bv Mr Wall, counsel said that this witness had told the Court that Hunt's visits to' Mrs Strang ab her (witness' house extended over roughly three months, wh : le the fact was that Mrs Strang only lived at Mrs • Wa'l's house for three weeks Mrs Wall said she introduced Mrs Strang to Hunt on Timai-u, race day in April. This was April 19.' After this Mrs wenlb to t her parents' borne in Ash burton for a few days, and then went to live with Mrs Wall, 'so that she look up her residence 'there towards the end of April. - It was admitted that ?he took the LeCren Street house about 1 the middle of Mav. so that she coul'd lot'have been at Mrs Wall's p'ace more 'ban throe weeks, though Mrs Waif iad told them_ of alleged happenings here for a period extending over three '•onths. Could any evidence he of less r .ilu,e than that of a woman who talked ike that P Bute Mrs Rohson was in.-stoll vorse plight, for she had told the ."Vnirt that she had seen Hunt visiting Vfrs Strang alt Mrs Wall's house for a ->eriod of nearly six months, notwith,tanding ithat Mrs Strang was not living tt that house more than three weeks, jury would convict on evidence of hat sort. With regard to the Trafalgar Street fire, it had been shown iihat HDirnt was at it, though Mrs Wall told -hem the preposterous story that he was ocked in her house that night with Mrs Strang. A-jury had navor heard : rom lips of man or woman a mora preDosterous story than _ this. To have lone as' Mrs Wall said, /Mm Strang vould require to be a blithering idiot, rhe books of the Fire Brigade showed hait Hunt was alt the fire on this parocular night, and it was preposterous yo say that he was locked in Mrs Wall's louse when he could so easily have got nil of the windows, even if the doors lad been locked. Counsel dealt with vhat he called the, baok-yard and .over-he-fence gossip of women. siud said .hat this was not the seed-bed on which irorth grew. And so they_ had women •omine to the Court with fanciful ttories, the result of streelt and house--30-hou.se gossip, expanded hy repetition, md distorted by careless tongues. Counsel invited the; jury to wipe oft the'slats . the evidence of both Mrs Wall suid Mrs Rohaom, as befog wholly inconsistent, untrustworthy and incredible, The respondent should not be condemned on ■uch evidence. Possibly Hunt had been attracted hy. Mrs Strang, and it might fie that he "had visited her house mora sften than was prudertt; but it By no means followed that there jiac] peen iiiytliing improper between ihewv, l*orbaps BOtne philandering had been going an, but they would not he justified on thsjf! *ocu>unt in that aayt-Üb^.

further had happcnped. They had io that Hunt's i\ife used Lo visit. Mrs Strang; that his children used to stop v ith her; and thalb Mrs Strang had ono icl her own brothers living with ]ier. Hunt absolutely denied chat lie had visited the house late at night except tu take his wile home. • It had been :-aid that Hunt had been seen in Mrs Strang's bedroom, but it was shown that the room in which lie was seen belonged to Mrs brother, Keith. Tlie jury might convict on circumstantial evidence, if ilfc were substantial, but in this case it was too slight. aTO was positively contradicted on oaith. Mrs Strang was fighting for her honour, Mr Hunt for his family life, and both had denied wrong-dd.ng in such a way as to fill the jury with doubt concerning the evidence given by and for the'petitioner. By producing the birth certificate of an illegitimate ihild which Mrs-Strang had had some vears ago as counsel far the petitioner had done, no doubt at the instigationof the petitioner, the latter said in effect: "My wife was damaged goods before I got her, and now that I have no longer got her I want £1000." Counsel invited tlie ■ jury not t 0 allow the i.inonejt-ary aspect of the case to wei™h ! with them, but to- consider the _ woman's I "ood name and the honour of her little i child and its future. He would not bo so stupid as Ho ask them to give a s-vmpathetic verdict to suit t\v- two women whoso future was involved, bir to consider the facts fairly and come to mi unbiassed finding. Counsel quote;! , decisions of judges to show that the cvi- | dence in such cases as this must be nuito incompatible with innocence before a jury would be justified m liiu«r ffiuifc; and'concluded by afsevti-i:' Itba'b the evidence in this case was -iitojcicther inefficient to justifv a vcrrlic* I for the petitioner. I I MR CAMPBELL'S ADDRE:^.

Mr Campbell', for the co-respondent, said it would not be necessary ipr him to duplicate the able analysis 'o,. '. I o evidence given by counsel tor the ie- . spondent. The evidence against therespondent and the co-respondent i>;is the same and indivisible. Hunt Mas 'charged with misconduct with Mrs Strang for a period extending over no years, while Strang was away at the trout. 'Strang, having been away to the war, could not give evidence covering anything like this period. Tiie "letter written by Mrs Strang to her husband was not an admission of guilt, as stated l-y Strang. (Counsel here read the " letter 'to show this.) ' Strang charged his wife with misconduct, I.ur. she absolutely denied it. Counsel lor Strang had shown that Mrs Strang 1 .id committed an indiscretion some >c.u» ago, 'but that was -no proof that s- I'twould do so again, and should not havebeen introduced in the case. Strain: himself admitted that he had' had .IIK-lt intimacy with his wife before he married her, 'but he had no right to introduce this as he had done, To profit by his own wrong-doing. An insinuation had been made, that Hunt had been paying Mrs Strang's bills, but t o attempt had been made to substantiate .the insinuations The object of course was' to poison the mind of. tbo jury against the co-respondent. It, was al<-<i suggested that there had been a vow between Hunt and his wife and Mrs Strang at Christchurch, but; no proof of it was forthcoming. Another suggc*ticui was made that Hunt had been itiirned oiit of : the Firo Brigade, but again no proof was forthcoming. With regard to the- garden at tbe bade of Mrs Strong's*"house it was a perfcilv proper thing for a man to do, namely gr;ow vegetatbles For his family <;i . waste land wheullie had no laud ■\\li-.'ie .he was living. The stupid story that Hunt had been locked in Mrs Strang's house on the night of the Trafalgar ■ Street (fire was too preposterous to be giypn credence. The Fire Brigade books showed that Hunt was present at that fire. The case was a very serions one—j next only in importance"to a charge of ■murder— and it was not a, case to be. dealt witli in a light or humorous'spirit such as'had been created by the method of cross-examination adopted by counsel for the petitioner. A case which had been conducted as counsel for ~*'ljtioner had conducted this one indicated that his COS 3 was desperate. The should bo. treated with tbo utmost 'gravitv for it was a, "serious matter for Mrs Strang, and for Hunt >\ ho was accused of having been dead "To every sense of decency bv reducing a soldier's -wife in tlie latter's aVenro : ! and .doing this when.his own wife -was' about to bear him a third child. Mi Campbell referred to the evidence ot Mrs Wall and, Mrs Rohson to show that they were hopelessly and totaily wrong in what thov had said coucornin™ Hunt's'alleged visits to Mrs "Wall"., house. Mrs Strang had been at t ! <is ' house for less thou ar month, yet Ihe witnesses named had told the Conn that Hunt had-been ;going there to s=re Mrs Strang for several months. Thcve was nothing out of the way in Hum, showing Mrs Strang over the l<iie Station. It was a common thing in all cities for visitors to look over _tl,o Fire Station. Mrs Hunt had taken a iancy to Mrs Strang as soon as she was introduced to her, and they were still 'close and intimate friends. Providence had been* good to Hunt in pioviding his wife with so good a friend as Mrs Strang in her time- of need. After Mrs Hunt's child was born she con- . tinned to visit Mrs Strang and was as friendly as ever with her to-day. Mrs Strang's brothers had given evidence in Hint's favour, and it was not likely ■that,they would do this if they-thought that Hunt had been wronging their sister. With regard to the garden, counsel said it was perfectly natural that Hunt should cultivate this ground which, belonged to his father, and'was' not being utilised by Mrs Strang. The ' "garden incident" was simply a little bit of side-play dragged in by counsel for'the petitioner in order to prop up the tottering edifice! of the petitioner's case. The fact was that petitioner Lad had_ his mind worked upon by foul stories which had inflamed him—stories which had no foundation in fact—and counsel asked the jury to do good io the over-wrought petitioner by dismissing his suit for divorce. (Continued on Page S».