DIVORCE ACTION.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 600, 2 November 1932, Page 7

DIVORCE ACTION.

Allegations of Misconduct Against Wife.

An action for divorce on the ground of misconduct was heard in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justice Ostler and a jury. The petitioner was Harold Leslie Macfarlaine, plasterer, of Christchurch, and the respondent was Evelyn Euphrasia Mac* farlane. Mr Stacey appeared for petitioner. Mr Gee appeared for respondent and Mr Archer for co-respondent.

The petition stated that the petitioner and respondent were married on October 2, 1919, and there were three children. It was alleged that respondent was guilty of misconduct at North Beach on September 8, 1932. Mr Gee said that respondent had filed an answer, in which she alleged misconduct against petitioner in 1926, and also alleged cruelty, in that petitioner had left her alone at nights. She prayed for a divorce against petitioner on those grounds. “ But they have been living together since then,” said his Honor, “ and that is proof in law that such misconduct was condoned.” Petitioner, in evidence, said that he and a man named Smith had visited Mrs Macfarlane’s house at North Beach. They had seen her enter, followed shortly by the co-respondent, whose car was parked nearby. Later he saw the co-respondent, who asked whether witness 44 wanted a divorce or a lump sum.” Petitioner admitted he had been adjudged the father of an illegitimate child in 1926. ‘ Henry Alan Smith gave corroborative evidence.

Further evidence for petitioner was given by Ernest Robert Horton, relief worker.

To Mr Stacey, witness said that a “ little short man with a moustache ” Spoke to him outside the court in the luncheon hour. The man said he was a witness in the case.

Mr Archer objected to that evidence. He had no witness with a moustache. Mr Gee sai dthe only evidence he would call would be that of the respondent. Mr Archer said that his only witness was the co-respondent. “ Obviously what some stranger said to this man and what he said in reply is not admissible,” said his Honor. (Proceeding.)