DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 153, 28 June 1907, Page 4

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

AUSTIN" v. AUSTIN.

A RECALCITRANT WITNESS.

At the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr. Justice Denniston, Catherine Austin petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with' William Austin on the grounds of his misconduct with a woman unknown. Mr. J. E. Heed appeared for petitioner, and there was no appearance of respondent. The petitioner confirmed the statements in her petition, and identified a photograph (produced) as that of her husband.

A private detective in the employ of EL WSding, private linquiry agent, gave evidence of having watched respondent for a week, and having followed him and a woman on February 26th entering the Western Park, where, he stated, they misconducted themselves. Witness taxed respondent with the misconduct, and the respondent admitted it, adding, " I knew 1 was being watched for some time. You can. go on. I'm tired of the whole thing at home."

In reply to questions the witness said he did not know from whom the instructions originated. He carried out the instructions of his employer.

Another witness named Thomas Oakes deposed to seeing the respondent accompanied by a woman -who -was not his wife, leave the lower exit of the Western Park on the night in question. Subsequently respondent asked witness if he had seen him, and witness replied "Yes." The next day he made c. statement to Mr. Wilding. His Honor:, How did you come to make the statement to Mr. Wilding the nest morning? Who asked, you? Witness: I met Mr. Austin, the nest morning. His Honor: Tha£ does not explain how came you to go to Mr. Wilding's office the next morning. Witness: Mr. Austin said to mc, "You know the woman was not my wife." His Honor: Why did you go to say what you had seen? Witness: On principle. His Honor: What principle? Witness: Because I tell the truth, that's all. I don't know, I'm sure. I didn't know there was any divorce case coming on." His Honor (with some asperity): Why did you go up to Mr. Wilding the next morning? ' Witness: I don't think it was the next morning. His Honor: When was it? Witness: It may have been the next morning. I couldn't swear to it. His Honor: Now, take care what you are saying, or I shall commit you for 'contempt: Why did you go? Witness: I went at Mr. Austin's request. Hi 3 Honor: How did that bring you to Mr. Wilding? Why did you go up and tell him? Who asked you to go to Mr. Wilding? Witness: I've told you, your Honor. It was at "Mr. Austin's request. I'm. speaking the truth, your Honor. His Honor: Yes. with very great difficulty. The witness was proceeding to qualify his remarks, his Honor cut him short, warning him if ever he came in Court again, to be more careful. The next time he might, not meet such a lenient judge. The petitioner, recalled, said that she gave instructions to Mr.- ..Wilding •to have her husband watched. Her husband had not been living with her for a long time. She had not lived happily with him, and she had once got a separation order from him. He had previously misconducted himself. She had condoned the offence. Two orders for maintenance had b.?en made against him, and since the 14th November, 1905, they had not been living together. She had made no arrangement with her husband regarding the present proceedings, but confined herself to giving instructions to Mr. Wilding. In March last year her husband came to her house so often to annoy her that she had to get him bound over to keep the peace. His Honor regretted that petitioner should be fastened by such bonds, but he could not have the Court used as machinery. It was suspicious that the morning after the occurrence the husband should-.go to an accidental wit- | ness, and get him to. swear information

Mr. Reed suggested that that was a. counter move on the husband's part; that he (respondent) knew that he was being watched. His Honor said he would consider the matter.