PETITION IN DIVORCE

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14775, 14 October 1921, Page 5

PETITION IN DIVORCE

■'“• A HAMILTON CASE HUSBAND SEEKS ANNULMENT. £2OO DAMAGES CLAIMED. A defended divorce petition wis heard before Mr Justice Stringer and a jury of 12, at Hamilton to-day, in which Thomas Matecr, fireman, of Matamata, Bought the annulment of his marriage with Etlie Evelyn Talbot Mateer, nee Cockhead, on the grounds of adultery with Charles S. Goodwill, motor mechanic, of Hamilton. Petitioner was represented by Mr R. Singer (Auckland), respondent by Mr Cox (Hamil•ton), and co-respondent by Mr E. ITNorthcroft (Hamilton). A sum of £2OO damages was claimed against co-re-spondent. Mr Singer, in opening the case, described pelflioher as a respectable, hard-working man, whose desire was to do his duty to his wife and his home during his married life, but his wife exhibited a desire to lead a double life, and made no secret of her desire to reside in Hamilton. Petitioner was frequently away from home, and on his return at week-ends found that his wife had often been to Hamilton'without his knowledge. She ran her husband deeply into debt, and a disagreement arose between them, but finally an agreement was drawn up between them by' which she undertook not to contract debts in his name, he promising to provide a decent home for her. His wife had, however, lived almost continuously at Hamilton since that time, and had taken a house there where she resided with her two children. One of these children, counsel mentioned, was born prior to the marriage, and petitioner was not its father. He only learned of this child, in fact one day .-before the marriage. Petitioner had suspected respondent of misconduct with co-respondent, and one night when he went to her house in Hamiltm she came home in a car. On her entering the house he noticed that she had pine needles in her hair. Asked to account for their presence, she said she had been skylarking at a fish shop, where she was employed. Petitioner went away next morning and took his child with him. Respondent later admitted misconduct with Goodwill. Respondent, whenever petitioner wanted custody of the boy of the marriage, told him that he was not the father, and mentioned the name of another man as the (father. Co-respondent later admitted to petitioner that he had wronged him, and appealed to him not to take the matter to Court, as it would mean two divorces. He also tried to “square” respondent with money to stay proceedings,'but the latter refused. Petitioner said he only discovered a day or two before his marriage that respondent had a child, hut notwithstanding this he married her. After marriage he took her to reside at Matamata, but he was away most of the time, returning regularly at week-ends. He frequently found, when he returned, a note waiting for him telling him she had gone to Hamilton. He was at that • time working for the County Council, but in order to be at home more often he took a, job at the glaxo factory. He was asked by the manager to take over the boardinghouse, and this, with his wife’s consent, he decided to do. Owing to complaints by boarders that the place was not being properly run, however, he was given notice to quit. He later took another house at Matamata, which, however, , she refused to occupy, and she went to live in Hamilton, where she took a thrcc-roomcd house. Ho discovered after they left the boardinghouse that she had run him into debt for well over £SO, although she had had all his wages and the money from the boarders. After she went to live In Hamilton she used to return periodically to Matamata, sometimes taking him clean clothes. She invariably returned to Hamilton 1 the same day. Although his wife was working in Hamilton and earning £2 10s per week, he gave her all his money except what he paid for board- Her Hamilton house was very roughly kept and the little hoy was ill-clothed. Petitioner frequently came down to Hamilton at night, returning to Matamata, early next morning. The two children were invariably left to prepare their own meals, and he tried to persuade respondent, if she insisted upon working, to get employment that did not keep her away from home at night. Peti-

tioner said he had watched Goodwill for

12 months prior to May of this year. Ho (petitioner) had often visited the

kitchen of the Oceanic and had seen Goodwill there. His wife frequently went home with co-respondent. He had remonstrated with her and with him over their intimacy. On May 11 petitioner was in Hamilton all day, his wife telling him she would not be home till 8 o’clock, as she had to do an extra hour’s work for one of the other girls. f?he arrived home by motor, and when she took her hat off he noticed pine needles in her hair. He asked her who brought her home and she replied “Charlie,” meaning co-respondent. He told her she might hav cleaned herself up before coming home, anq/asked her to take the pine needles out of her hair. He asked her the meaning of

them, and she replied that she had (been skylarking. Next morning he went L) the flsh shop, but found no pine trees in the yard. Petitioner then returned to Matamata, taking the little boy, who was dirty and covered with sores, with him. Two days later she followed him to Matamata and asked him to go back to her, but he refused. She wanted the child, but he refused to let her have him.* Frequently, when they had quarrelled, previously, she had told him the child was not his. Her mother had also said the same thing. Prior to leaving Matamata on the last occasion, his wife took off her wedding ring- and watch and threw them on the grass. She told him if he would let her have the child she would ask him for no maintenance for 12 months, that she would be true, and that at the end of that time she Would ‘‘pick him up" and be a good wife to him. During a subsequent conversation she admitted that she had wronged him. Some lime later, on her asking him to forgive her, he said he would not until he had satisfaction from Goodwill. She said she would bring them together and she brought co-respondent out, of the old soldiers’ club. Petitioner told co-respon-dent that his wife had confessed and asked Goodwill if it was true. He replied ‘“Yes, Tom: I have wronged you. I want to make it right with you.” He then wanted him (petitioner) to accept money, but he refused. Ho asked corespondent why he had not told him of it before, and he said respondent

had told him to wait; a few days, as he .(petitioner) would ‘take’ to him. Co-re-spondent then said, "Well, if you won’t lake money Tom, what about thrashing me, and be done with it?” He did not thrash him, however. Before he left co-respondent asked him if lie would accept £SO, but he refused. Petitioner SUS-er saw co-respondent at the place where he worked, when Goodwill again admitted having wronged him and asked him how much money would square it. Petitioner replied that he did not want the money; he merely wanted to be free. The case is proceeding-