SUPREME COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 18783, 17 May 1923, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

WANGANUI SESSION ' The following is the list of casetl set down to be dealt with at the Wanganui session of the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Reed, commencing on May 28: CRIMINAL. Alexander Currie, alleged thefts of goods. CIVIL. Before Judge and Jury. Lacey v. Lacey, wages claim Liddington v. Castlecliff Railway Co., claim for alleged damages aris ing < ..t of accident caused by railway vehicle overturning. Nelson v. N.Z. Shipping Co., claim I for alleged damages arising out of accident during employment. Moss v. Lovegrove, claim for alleged damages arising out of accident during employment. Birch v. The John, Ltd., claim for alleged damages arising out of accident during employment. Before Judge alone.

Wanganui Borough Council v. Gardner, claim for rates.

Miles and another V. Goldfinch and another, claim for monies alleged to be due under mortgage.

Easton and others v. Tiki Brcwory and others, claim under guarantee. Hodson's Motor, Ltd., v. Gamlin, claim for alleged damages arising out of motor-car collision, also coua ter claim. Wood v. Simpson, claim for interest, etc., on promissory note. Meyer v. Ellis and another, claim for interest, etc., and ratification of sale purchase in agreement. Hauparou Hiroti v. T. Hartley, claim for alleged balance due on sa'.« of motor-car. IN DIVORCE. Before Judge and Jury. Waugh v. Waugh, petition for dissolution of marriage on grounds of alleged desertion. Pugh v. Pugh, applicaticm ongrouuds of separation by alleged mutual consent. R. Eurini v. N. Haimonai, on grounds of alleged desertion. Before Judge alone. Kite v. Kite, on grounds of alleged desertion. Wilson v. Wilson, do. Robertson v. Robertson, do. Leonard v. Leonard, on grounds of separation.

THE DENTON DIVORCE CASE [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 15. The divorce case Denton v. Denton and Benjamin Francis Carrington and Herbert Montague Rosenberg is being continued to-day. Mr Mazengarb, for the petitioner, said the petitioner had consulted bis solicitor first in regard to a separation. Then there was a reconciliation. Petitioner discovered certain letters and took further proceedings. A letter written by respondent was produced, dated June 3, 1922, in which she declared she desired to be left alone and would not call on her husband for maintenance. Petitioner said there had been no serious disagreement that led up to the letter. A taxi-driver said he had driven respondent from the stand en Clyde Quay Wharf to her homo at Kil bernic several times from 10.30 to 11.30 p.m. A witness wtho resided near Denton’s house said he had seen Rosenberg in Mrs Denton's house in August last. Denton was in the hospital at the time. During that time respondent kept very late hours. On one evening there was a very lively time at the house, kept up till the small hours of the morning. Mrs Denton beat a kerosene tin at sup-per-time.

Percy Jenkins, a painter, another neighbour of Denton’s, said that soon after the Denton's came he saw a man about the place. He thought it was Denton, but subsequently discovered it was Carrington. He once saw Carrington getting over Denton's back fence. One night he was asked to have a drink at Denton's house, and Carrington was there. He had seen them in very intimate positions, like lovers embracing each other. He had also seen Rosenberg in Denton's house, while Denton was in the hospital. He had seen Rosenberg there at an early hour. Once ba looked through Mrs Denton's window at night and saw Rosenberg and Mrs Denton in bed.

The hearing was continued to-day in the divorce petition, Denton v. Denton.

Evidence was given by a neighbour as to seeing a man about the house when Denton was away. Another witness deposed to seeing -Mrs Denton at the Empire Hotel. Masterton. in January with a man who was not her husband. Witness thought it was Rosenberg. He noticed in the hotel register the names of Mr and Mrs Rosenberg, room 16.

Evidence was also given by three other witnesses, Including a private detective, as to the movements of respondent and Rosenberg. Jenkins, in evidence, said he saw through a clear pane of glass respondent and Rosenberg. It was suggested an architect should see the window and report, but when petitioner went home last night he found the pane had been frosted over. A m'Sn who was working on a building opposite saw a man at the window. Ho came to Court this morning and said he saw a man yesterday afternoon painting Ihis particular pane. An architect also gave evidence that this particular pane had been frosted over. Other similar panes in other windows in the house were not so frosted.

This afternoon Mr O’Leary put Mrs Denton, the respondent, in the box. She denied the evidence of the previous witnesses. She detailed the Masterton trip, and said she was not aware a room had been booked for Mr and Mrs Rosenberg. She refuted the stories of the previous witness, who alleged they had seen her in bed wiQi Rosenberg. She denied that she had been on intimate relationship with either Carrington or Rosenberg. She had some lively passage! with Mr Mazengarb, who made th< allegations to her. She alleged bi was a breaker of homes.