CRAIG DIVORCE CASE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1752, 17 May 1913, Page 5

CRAIG DIVORCE CASE.

JURY UNABLE TO AGREE. ! CO-RESPONDENT SEVERELY CROSS-EXAMINED. AN EXTRAORDINARY CORRESPONDENCE, . (By Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.) Auckland, May 10. The jury lias been nimble to agreo in itlie Craig divorce case. The co-respondent, Henry Hnrgreaves, to-day underwent a sevcro cross-examination, and further extracts were read from the correspondence which passed between him and Mrs. Craig. 'Die petition, as stated yos'tcrday, is that of Thomas John Craig, merchant, of Auckland, against Zillali Aurora Craig, with Ilargreaves, who is ■ a Sydney bank clcrk, joined as co-respondent. 1 Br. JJamford' asked Ilargreaves: When her husband was ill you laughed at him. You say, "It will only repay him for tlio misery ho has caused you." Did you wri'to that?— Witness: Yes, I wroto that. Thcro was nothing in it. l)r. Bawford: And you assume a proprietary interest in Mrs. Craig? Hero is what you have written: "So they think your return will work wonders, d 11 ■ them." "Don't sit up with him and rnako yourself ill. I absolutely forbid it, /lillah." "Let the crawler die, and bo d —d to him." "Have you heard from G , dear? Only write a formal answer. I want you all to myself." "X am 6orry to hear 'it is improving.'" "I am relieved to hear that you are sleeping by yourself." ' Aro thero any other married women you write to in this strain t Witness: No. Dr. Uamford: What docs "that night at 25" refer to?— Witness: I told Mrs. Craig I cared for hor that night.' Dr. Bauiford: You did not tell hor you cared for tho nurso of anybody else?— Witness: No. I don't think so. Dr, Baiuford: That was bel'oro you canio to New Zealand and lived at Beach Road?. —Witness: Yes. nis Honor: Do you remember wrting to this woman, asking if sho allowed licr husband to kiss her?— Witness: Yes. His Honor: Do you rnako a habit of putting that question to married women? —Witness was understood to intimate that lie didn't. i His Honor: Because if you did tho consequences to yourself would probably bo more drastic than divorce proceedings. Tho addresses by counsel wcro practically only summaries of tho evidence. In summing up the evidence for tho jury, his Honour pointed out that they had to consider whether tlio letters that had been wrttcn were, as Mr. Pvcndorgast had put it, compatible with innocouce. Could an honest man havo written such letters, an honest man inl'atu. ated with a woman, as honest men had been, and would be again? Could an honest married woniankeep and reply to such letters as these? Could a man who honestly, loved a woman write to iitr for< bidding her to • kiss her husband, and stating that ho wanted her all ta himself? What did ho mean by that »bom;nablo language? Ho expressed tho wish that her husband may suffer tortures before lio dies. Was that tho lovo of a. man whoso love was no less than I 's respect? Tho jury must oonsider tho ivliola of tho circumstances, the persistent comimmicatioii and tho constant meetings* On tho last Hmo tho lady left for Auckland, . sho then, at all events, know, that' ' her " husband most decidcdly objected to hor relations with this man, and oven nftor tint, thero was a long, unfinished letter written by tho wifo. in this thero wcro, answers to questions that should never havo been asked. The jury, however, must bo as satisfied as to her guilt beforo returning; a verdict to that effect, as if tho offence wcro punishable' by lino or imprisonment, and tho'y Were trying it. in tho Court below. That any decent person could writo such letters seemed to his Honour lo be inconceivable, but bo pointed out that that did not affect the respondent exoept in so far as sho kopt the letters and did not roprovo them. Regarding tho second issue, thero was 110 evidence on which tho jury oonld act. There was no evidence of any wrong except the wrong of drunkenness, and in that respect thcro was not only the evidenco ot tho respondent, but of several other,witnesses that Craig drank to. excess. But thcro was 110 cyidonco of cruelty apart from tho fact that he unquestionably took too much liquor. The question for tho jury was whether a wifo who was treated with reasonable kindness, who did not want for anything, could to said to bo driven to adultery because her husband drank too much. There" wcro . other steps she could navo taken. If his .drunkenness was such as «lto described sho could in tho first place have taken out a prohibition order against him. 'One could not Help sympathising with a woman who had to livo with a man who drank to excess, but that was 110 rwison in law why she should be driven to adultery. _ The application of tho law lay with his Honour. The jury could consider this' aspect of tho nue«tion ntcn of feeling. , q \s stated above, tho jury Mn°nncod that t'liPT were "nablo to agree, and that tho rccuiirod throe-fourths minoritycoula not bo obtained either way on tho issues ' SU It will bo decided to-morrow •nhethet ' the caso will be ve-heard this session.