SCHEME FAILS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 227, 25 September 1929, Page 9

SCHEME FAILS.

CHANGE OF HUSBANDS.

UNIQUE DIVORCE CASE.

A REMARKABLE DOCUMENT,

'•WALK IX—WALK OUT. ,,

When the wife of John Porcival Smith' admitted to him that she had been misconducting herself with a neighbouring farmer, Smith a few days later saw the neighbour, Joseph Archibald McClean, and the latter agreed to buy Smith's farm and stock, take care of the children and marry Mrs. Smith when Smith had secured a divorce. This was stated by Smith (Mr. Indcr), when this morning he brought a petition for divorce from Beatrice Smith. McClean (Mr. Meredith) was cited as co-respondent. The case came before his Honor Mr. Justice Smith. Petitioner ssid he and respondent were married on January 22, 19K3, and, after residing in various places in the Dominion, finally settled down at Kaiwuka, North Auckland. Respondent had given birth to three children since the marriage. Petitioner, in addition to conducting a farm of 28 acres at Kaiwaka. was an employee of the Otanuvtea County Council, and was away from the farm every day. Next his farm was a family named* McClean, and the corespondent, Joseph Archibald McClean, aged 31, was the only son. Wife's Admission. Both families had been on friendly terms for nine years, and petitioner did not suspect his'wife till last Christmas, when, because of something he asked her, she confessed that there had been misconduct between herself and McClean. The latter, when spoken to, also made an admission. In February last petitioner and McLean came to Auckland, and an agreement was drawn up ill which McClean agreed to purchase the farm from petitioner, and McClean also signed an- admission of misconduct. Mr. Meredith: Did you suspect that your wife was not true to you when the second child was born?— No. Did you pay the doctor's fee of £S 8/?— No. McClean paid it, did he not?— Yes, but I didn't know till last Christmas. And McClean also paid the nurse's fee?—l didn't know till last Christmas. MeClean was also paying 10/ a week towards the maintenance of the child. You knew that?—l knew nothing till last Christmas. Husband's Suggested Agreement. In answer to further questions, petitioner said that a few days after his wife's admission he saw McClean and asked him to call at the house. McClean did so. Mr. Meredith: And you suggested he should buy the farm?— Yes. And the stock?— Yes. And the furniture?— Yes. And he was to marry Mrs. Smith when you divorced her. That was your proposal ? —Yes. "Walk In—Walk Out." Mr. Meredith: Really a walk-in, walkout proposal, in which you were to dispose of to McClean your farm, stock, furniture, children and wife. Continuing, petitioner said that the clay following the discussion at the house with McClean, respondent came to Auckland to have the name of the Recond child changed from Smith to McClean. Later petitioner came to Auckland and met McClean. They went to a solicitor and documents were drawn up and signed. It was arranged that the costs of the divorce proceedings petitioner was to take would be paid by McClean, and it was understood that McClean would not defend the, proceedings. An Offer of £iooo. Questioned keenly by Mr. Meredith about a conference he had with "Archie' McClean and his mother in the washhouse at Mrs. McClean's place, petitioner said that he was offered £1000 if he would drop the divorce proceedings, go on living with his wife and go to another part of the country. Mr. Meredith: Did you not say that £1000 was not enough? —Yes. Didn't you say you were getting old and wanted something for your old age ?_Yes, I said that. They wanted me to take the two children and the wife away. What price did you mention as a fanprice ?_i don't think I mentioned a price at all. Didn't you tell Mrs. McClean that £2000 was your figure?—No, I told Archie that he would have to see the wife. That was the £1000 offer?— Yes. When Archie went up you and Mrs. McClean were left together and it was then that you put up to Mrs. McClean that £2000 should be the amount?—l don't think so; I can't remember. Y"ou know Mr. Lewis, a brother-in-law of McClean's ?—Y r es. He came to see you in May last? — Yes. Never Quarrelled. And he was surprised at the pleasant relations between you and your wife after what had happened?—He didn't say so. Y'ou told him you had never quarrelled with your wife "and that you were not going to quarrel with her over this matter ?—Y'es. You remember Mr. Wall and Mr. Lewis calling upon you about May 29?— Yes. And they told you that McClean was now advised and would defend the divorce, and you replied: "Well, that was not the agreement"? —Yes. And your wife said to you, "Father, don't let them talk you over"?—Y r es. You were also told that McClean was not going to pay any more money, nor was he goincr to marry Mrs. Smith? — Yes. Y T ou asked McClean if he stood for that and he replied he did?— Yes. Then Mrs. Smith turned to McClean and said, "Y T ou dirty cow"?—I didn't hear it. Y r ou and Mrs. Smith left the farm on July 1 last?— Yes. Where are you both living?—l live about a mile from where my wife lives. Y r ou see her pretty often? —Y'es. Re-examined by Mr. Inder, petitioner said the idea of the £1000 offer was for him to provide for the two children, take his wife away and make a homo for her elsewhere than at Kaiwaka. George Clark Walker, solicitor, said that the co-respondent had admitted to him misconduct with Mrs. Smith. McClean said he thought he was responsible for Mrs. Smith's second child, also the then unborn child. He also said he wanted his children and would marry Mrs. Smith when Smith divorced her. Witness drew up a document, which was an admission by McClean and this co-

respondent signed. There was also an agreement about the purchase of the farm by McClean. "Sale of a Wife." Mr. Meredith questioned the witness about the agreement and admission drawn up. His Honor: It looks as though a sale of a wife and some land was involved. Sort of modern Russian arrangement. His Honor (to witness): Would you say that the buying of the land was incidental to the* co-respondent taking over the wife? —No. (The case is proceeding.)