HAMILTON DIVORCE CASE

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14776, 15 October 1921, Page 6

HAMILTON DIVORCE CASE

MATEER v. MATEER. After we went to press yesterday additional evidence was taken in the divorce case Mateer v. Mateer (hus- ; band's petition), in which Charles S. 'Goodwill is cited as co-respondent, :'£2oo being claimed from him. Goodwill said the affair must be settled, as it would mean two dii vorces if the matter went to Court, i Petitioner still refused to take any money, and the two then went and ' lunched together, co-respondent paying I for the meal. The night before lm returned to Matamala he was round at his mother-in-law's (Mrs Cockhead) house, when, after some argument. Mrs j Cockhead said to her daughter, "If ha ] wants to get a divorce Effie, let him get it: I can til you out with a better num." Under cross-examination by Mr Norlhcroft, petitioner said he had fre'i quently seen co-respondent 'in the 'I kitchen of Hie fish shop. He had never • actually remonstrated with him over • this, nor had he mentioned the matter ' to the proprietor of the fish shop, except on one occasion, when he told him he should not have men about the kitchen. His Honour: But what was co-res-pondent doing in the kitchen? Mak- . ing love to your wife over the frying pan or what? (Laughter.) Petitioner said Goodwill ussd to whisper to her and the others while : they were frying fish. Petitioner was cross-exammed at ' some length by Mr Northcroft, in the I course of which he explained that ; though very angry with Ihe co-respon-i dent, he had gone to lunch with him, : as he (co-respondent) had expressed a Wish to come to an understanding. He was claiming the money from co- ; " respondent in order to reimburse him for his outlay; but money was not the object of the action. Case for Respondent. Respondent made a general denial of of adultery, stating in her pleadings at the same lime that petitioner condoned adultery. She stated that on one oceaS/on she was rather late and had asked .Goodwill to drive her home. They went ;'.straight home, :l nd on her entering the "house her husband asked who brought her home and she answered "Goodwill." He then said, "I am going for a divorce!" She asked on what grounds, and he replied, "for him bringing you home." She said "you can't," and he 1 answered "yes I can if I tell a lie; they will believe rnc rather than you!" ; She denied that she ever had pineneedles in her hair. On the following Monday petitioner took the child away ■with him, anil she followed him to Matamata to know the reason. He told her he was going for a divorce, that he wanted to get rid of her, and that he could tell a lie to suit himself. He asked her for her watch and ring, which he said were his, and she gave them to him. He was always harping on Goodwill taking her home, and she brought them together outside the Soldiers' Club, when her husband remarked to Goodwill, "you have been taking my wife home." He answered, "yes, there is no harm in that, is there?" He then took Goodwill aside and whispered something, when she heard her husband say "well, my wife told me different to that," whereupon she said, "no I didn't, Tom." Later her husband said he had paid Mr Armstrong £SO for a divorce, but if Mateer would pay this he would let it drop. She told him to see Goodwill, but ho replied, "you go and get him." She brought Goodwill along, and she heard her husband ask Goodwill for £SO, promising, if lie paid it, to drop the rase. Goodwill refused, and '°'' J n ' m if he thought he had any grounds to go fin with the case. Subsequently her husband wanterf'her to accept £IOO and allow him lo go to Australia- This she refused, lelling him In wait over the ease. He then remarked that if he lost it he would do for both of them.