THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15750, 17 November 1916, Page 2

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

1 IN DIVORCE. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Sim.) SMITH v. SMITH. James Smith (Mr Upham) applied for i a divorce from Kate Lilian Smith on the ground of desertion. j [ A decree nisi was granted, to be made j [ absolute at the end of three months. LOUDON v. LOUDON. [ John Loudon (Mr Cassidy) applied for a dissolution of his marriage with Florence Martha Loudon (Mr Mosley) ; on the ground of misconduct, George " "Lewis (Mr Alpers) being joined as co- . respondent. The suit was defended. The petitioner, who is a plumber, deposed that he married respondent in 1 March, 1913, and there were two children of the marriage. The co-respon--1 dent, Lewis, was introduced to petitioner by respondent some eighteen : months or two years ago. He became a fairly frequent visitor to petitioner's house in Worcester street. Last Christmas Eve he spent the evening at the house, and as he missed the last car, he stayed for the uight at petitioner's invitation. The result was that he continued to stay at the house for the whole week. On the New Year's Day respondent went to the races, and with petitioner's consent Lewis accompanied her. He also took her to the New Brighton gala early in January, the pair reachinrr home about 11.30 p.m. Petitioner did not see Lewis again for some time after that. Some time later petitioner oil coming home from business one evening pijt his arm round his wife, and feeling something inside her blouse-enquired what it was. On her refusing to tell him, he took it from her and found it to be a letter (produced) from Lewis. She said that she could not understand Lewis writing her such letters: she had never asked him to write. On the night of April 22nU, while _ petitioner and his wife were watching a fire, Lewis came along and asked petitioner whether he had ever said- that he, Lewis, "deserved kicking." Petitioner evaded the question and then taxed Lewis with writing the letter previously referred to. Lewis admitted having written it, and expressed his regret, but petitioner told him that lie must cease to be a visitor to the house. One morning towards the end of April. Lewis again came'to the house, and looked surprised when petitioner opened the door. Under ordinary circumstances petitioner would have been at business at that time of the morning. Lewis said that he wished to have "a word with him," but petitioner declined to argue with him, and watched him off the premises. On the morning of August 18th last, respondent wished to go to the trots, and petitioner told her definitely she must not go, she re- t nlying that she would please herself. I

Later in the morning petitioner saw her with Lewis in town, and later ho saw them together at the trots, losing trace of them about 3.30 p.m. Respondent reached home about an hour after petitioner and again informed him that she would please herself whether she went out or not. The next day when petitioner was going home from the races he met Lewis, and remonstrated with him. Lewis then said that ho thought a lot of respondent and they had made all arrangements to run away together as soon as he could raise the capital. He added that respondent would go out with him whenever he wished.* When they , reached petitioner's house respondent came along with the baby, and said to petitioner, "There's your kid. You can look after it.". Petitioner told her to stay at her sister's house that night, which she did, returning in the morning to take the bahy away. A bundle of letters and telegrams, which petitioner had taken from various boxps and bags of respondent, was produced, covering a period of about six months, some of which were from Lewis and some of which were evidently unsent letters written by respondent. Frances M. Loudon, L. I. Keat, G. Johnston, Maude Begg, and Alice May Parker also gave evidence. The respondent. Mrs Loudon, gave as to her various visits to New Brighton with Lewis, which were with the consent of her husband. On those occasions he referred to Lewis as 'Tier boy." AMr and Mrs Tullocli, her _ sister and brother-in-law, accompanied them each time. On one occasion when she and Lewis were going to the pictures, they met petitioner, who asked them to which theatre they were going, as lie was taking "his girl" or "his barmaid" out, and he did not wish to go to the same place as respondent and Lewis. With regard to the letters which had been produced, she had given them each one to her husband as she had received them. It was a common practice for her husband to refer to her as "Lewis's" wife, and to refer to his "own girl," or his own "little barmaid." She had. she proceeded, _ never walked arm-in-arm with Lewis in her life, as _ other witnesses had alleged.* Regarding the trotting meeting in August, her husband had promised to take her. but he refused to do so, saying that she could go with whom she wished. She, therefore, rang up Lewis on the first day. and wen* with him. leaving him in town on her way home. On the second day she went with her sister and Lewis, and on th third day she again went with Lewis, leaving him as before in town. Caroline i*l. Tulloch also gave evidence.

George Lewi's, co-respondent, said that hp wa s twenty-four years of age, and was employed as a farm hand at White .Hock Station. He had known Mrs Loudon since'childhood. He had stayed at Loudon's house at Loudon's invitation, and Loudon was always very friendly tvith him. While staying there he took Mrs Loudon out to New Brighton and elsewhere, with Loudon's consent. Prom January 11th to March 27th he iva s working in South Canterbury, au(j Loudon was quite cordial in his greeting when he returned. On April 22nd, when he had the argument with Loudon at the fire previously mentioned. Loudon had said that he would be pleased to give witness a sum of money if lie wished to take Mrs Loudon awav then. As a result of the quarrel he said that he would never | set foot within Ix>udqn's house again. Witness denied various enisodes alleged to have taken place between himself and Mrs Loudon. He also denied ever having said that he would take Mrs Loudon awav.

In giving judgment his Honour said that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence and from the letters produced was that there was some guilty intimacy between the respondent and co-respondent. A decree nisi would be granted, with leave to be made absolute at the end of three nictaths. Costs, on the lowest • scale, were awarded against the co-respon-dent, and an interim ordor was made for the custody of the children bv the petitioner. * MAGISTERIAL. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. James Brewster, an old offender, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, and a first offender was fined 5s or 24 hours' imprisonment. ALLEGED THEFT. Anthony Abbott, charged with having on October Bth last, stolen the sum of £16 10s. Accused stated he would plead guilty if he were allowed to ask the complainant a few questions. Mr Bishop said this could not be done. He must either plead guilty or not guilty, and he took the plea as not guilty,, and remanded the accused to the 24th instant. INDECENT ASSAULT. 'Before Messrs H. T. Crowther and H. Quane, J.P.'s.) E. A. De DeJatour was charged with-

having indecentiy assaulted a male. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, and stated that on Wednesday he had withdrawn from the case, but had reconsidered his decision. He complained of the discourtesy of the Chief Detective to himseli. _ Chief-Detective Herbert warmly repelled the suggestion of any want of courtesy on his part to Mr Donnelly, but the latter was always antagonistic to the police. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge, also to another of a like nature, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. CIVIL CASES. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Judgment was given by default in each of the following cases:—Fanny Thomson v. J. J. Dearsley, £9 16s 8d; I Allan Hopkins v. Horatio S. Flood, £41 8s; Lyttelton Times Co., Ltd. v. Harold Lloyd Flower, £36 3s; A. Arlow and Co", Ltd. v. W. J. Strain, £3 4s. LYTTELTON. (Before Cantain Hatcliwell and Mr W. C. Cleary, J.P.'s.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender -was convicted and fined ss, in default 24 hours' imprisonment. ALLEGED THEFT. Thomas R. Williams, who'was charged with stealing a pair of blinkers, valued at 15s, the property of the Lyttelton Borough Council, was remanded to appear to-day. Bail was allowed, self in £10, and one security of a similar amount. HOUSE-BREAKING. (press association telegram.) WELLINGTON, November 16. At the Supreme Court, Edward Alfred Foreman, on a series of charges of housebreaking and theft of jewellery, valued at £416, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment.