LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1439, 14 May 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

THE CONINGHAMS- . DIVORCE CASE OPENED. LIVELY PASSAGES. SIDELIGHTS ON ESPIONAGE. HOW IS IT WORKED? Unusually large was the crowd of spectators at the Supreme Court, when the civil sessions opened yesterday morning, before Mr. Justice Chapman. The interest was apparently centred in the case in which Alico Coiiinghain prayed for dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Coningham on the ground of misconduct. Mr. 11.l 1 . Levi, with Mr. P. W. Jackson, appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent (Arthur Coningham) appeared in person. A jury of twelve was cnosen, and Mr. Wilfred Kellow was selected as foreman. At the outset, .Mr. Levi asked that the case be heard in camera. The reasons for this had been shown in two affidavits filed. He would say nothing more than that it appeared, to be one of those cases which a special statutory provision enabled to be heard in camera. His Honour: I don't think there are sufficient grounds in the affidavits. It may be that I shall have to order that somo of the evidence bs not published. The petitioner refers in her affidavit to matters which relate to the conduct of her husband. As to the children, who are at school, ' there is 110 reason ivhy scandals should reach them if they are under proper discipline, inference is also made to evidence of a somewhat coarse character. It may be that when it is disclosed publication will be forbidden. c Respondent stated that there was a cross petition which he desired to have heard at the same time, but his Honour declined to discuss that as the cross petition was not set down. Evidence was then called in support of the petition. Mrs, Coningham's Evidence. Alice Coningham, the petitioner, was the first witness. She stated that she was married in S\dney on March 1893.. and had resided with her husband in Brisbane and Svdnev until 1900, when they separated. There had, however, been no legal separation. They had subsequently lived together for about a year in -New Zealand, this period extending until about three vears ago, when her husband again left. 'There were thr : eo children of the marriage, aged 17 years, 16 years, and 12 years. Coningliani had frequently sent her mouev for the support of the children, "but, for about, 12 years,he had never really maintained her. She went on to stato that a certain letter (read by Mr. Levi and signed "Con. ) was from "her husband, who had offered to compromise himself with a woman in Christchurch. To that letter she had never replied. 'In January, respondent, who had been on tho West Coast, returned to 'Wellington, and, about January 12, petitioner had her suspicions aroused, and she employed an agent to watch one Mary ilinian and Coningham. In consequence of a telephone message which sho received on the night of January 20, she took a cab, and went' to the Thorndon Esplanade, where she confronted, Mrs. Rimau and respondent, who were sitting together 011 a seat. To respondent:-' She would swear that <he had not lived with. respondent in Wellington during the past three veilrsnot in Mulgrave Street or at Ihc Man- , sions. , Respondent: What was the reisan why ] we separated in Sydney ? as it not your j admission of misconduct with a man— , His Honour directed respondent that _ he. must confine himself to. the case. He t had.no right to put such a question. . s . I Incident at the Dentist's. Respondent, then proceeded to refer to 1 the letter that had been read by Mr. Tevi. He wished to clear up any wrong impression that had been conveyed to the jiirv.br his "asking for forgiveness. Was it" not true that that referred to his conduct at Andrews's, the dentist's, consulting rooms? Mrs. Coningham answered that it ap- , ps a red to refer to something of t-lie kind. Respondent: When you broke a bottle over mv head? 13 Mrs. Coningham denied that sho ra«t done anything of. the kind. Mr. Andrews had called a policeman at the time, and had given' respondent in charge tor creating a disturbance. _ Respondent: Gave me in charger There vac 110 ea«e over it. How was that-? Mrs. Coningham did not endeavour to exnlnin. Respondent: Mill you swear that yr.n never stopped at Coker's Hotel, C.hnsrclmreh, under an assumed name? Mrs. Coningham: Swear! The Revolver. In further cross-examination tho ptitioner stated that she' had not "assumed' anv name except Stamford, which was her business name. She admitted having pointed a revolver at respondent on one occasion at "The Mansions," and considered that she had been justified 111 doin" so. Regarding her business in Cuba Street, she had called for a dissolution of the partnership with Bennert, when she discovered that Bennett lad been corresponding witli her husband about her. Espionage—How it is Paid For. Samuel Free, private inquiry agent, who had been employed to watch respondent end Mrs. Rinian, gave evidence as to the result of his observations. Respondent: How much are you getting for this case? ; Witness replied that he had received to date. . . Respondent: And what do you anticipate if it is successful? Witness replied that he would lie paid for his day at Court. Respondent: AA ho first employed you AYilford and Levi first sent for me. . • Respondent: Ihen if Mrs. Coningham says that sho first employed you that ' 'would be incorrect? After some words, witness admitted that it" would be incorrect. 1 A large number of other questions were put to "the witness concerning his move--1 incuts, and those of the man who had been in his company watching respondent 1 and Mrs. Riman, 1 George llazelwood, painter, of Corom nil del Street, declared that be had been emploved 'to assist Free in January last. 1 lfr detailed the result of his observations. 1 Cross-examined by respondent, witness 1 denied that he. was a "professional foxer. This was oulv the second occasion |. on' which' lie had helpsd Free. I lie had done so because Flee had hecn 1 unable to get ■ anyone else at the time. 1 'Witness received Is. (id. an hour for his | time, mid had received about a guinea altogether. _ . Evidence in support of Mrs. COllllls- - petition was ? l«n given by Bert I Darnill, manager of nie Mansions. I Respondent cave evidence on his own I IHinlf. He denied the allegations eonI iiined in the petition, though he admitted } having been in company with Airs. , "'lie "was submitted to a fairly lengthy S , oies-examinnlion, after which the furtlior I hearing wr.s adjourned until this morn-