THE PATERSON CASE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1843, 1 September 1913, Page 4

THE PATERSON CASE.

1 IN DIVORCE COURT. JURY FIND FOR MRS PATERSON. (By Telegraph. —Press Association.) Auckland, August 29. The hearing of' tho suit for divorce brought by William Henry Paterson' against Mabel Kathleen Paterson and Gustav Kronfeld (co-respondent) was concluded at the Supreme Court to-day before his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve. Summing-up, his Honour said that proof of Kronteld's alleged visit to Mrs. l'aterson's house at 6.yJ p.m. on June 27 was absolutely essential to the whole of petitioner's caso. If that visit had been disproved, petitioner's caso crumbled away. Tho husband's- witnesses bad said that the co-respondent went to tho House alter midnight, that Mrs. Paterson was not at the door (which was closed, the house being in darkness), and that Kronfold had walked straight in at the door as if someone was waiting there to admit him. On that tho whole superstructure of tho 'husband's case depended. As to whether Kronfold was at the house at 6.20 p.m., his Honour directed the jury's attention to tho fact that there was tho evidenco of two, "so-called" private detectives on the one hand, and, on tho other, that of Mrs. Paterson, to which, possibly, tho jury might attach little importance. In addition, there was the evidence of the proprietress and cook, of the "Bella Vista." 'lho two detectives, his Honour went on, differed hopelessly in tho details which they had given as to the visit of Kronfeld. It was st3ted to have been mado at 6.20 p.m., but in view of the con- - tradictory evidence of tho detectives, and the witnesses from the boardinghouse (viz., that respondent was there from before six o'clock that evening), was it possible for the jury to say that Kronfeld had boon at respondent's 'house as late as 6.20 p.m., or that slrs. Paterson did not go in next door at 5.50 p.m.? IT not, it seemed to his Honour impossible for the jury to say that respondent was guilty. Referring to the actions of petitioner and his brother, on being admitted to the house, his Honour asked why (if tho doors were not locked) they did not search the l'owor part of tho house instead ox confining tfieir attention to the billiardroom and bedroom. For Mrs. Paterson to havo admitted Kronfeld to the house at all, his Honour continued, was highly indiscreot, but indiscretion was not adultery, and a perfectly virtuous woman would very often commit indiscreet acts. His Honour passed some severe strictures upon tho profession ol private inquiry agents. As to tho action of the husband in turning his wife out of the. house on the night of tho occurrence, his Honour said that it was just as illegal as it was cruel. Tho law did not allow a man to bo Judge and jury in his own caso. Finally, his Honour said that the jury could, not look upon any of the witnesses as impartial. except tho two ladies from "Bella Vista," lyhoso evidence, in his cpinion, was all important. The- jury retired at 3.30 p.m., tho issues put to them to'decide being:— (1) Was Mrs. Paterson guilty of misconduct with co-respondent? and (2) was the co-respondent guilty of misconduct with Mrs. Paters'on? After an absence of about an hour and a half tho jury returned with a negative answer to each issue, and a verdict for Mrs. Paterson. The decision was unanimous, and tho petition . was accordingly dismissed.- The Court mado an order for costs against Pateri son on the highest scale, and v certified i to an extra allowance for counsels' fees . of £15 15s. for each of the three extra days of the trial. Costs as regards ■ tho issue of the commission to take coi respondent's evidence were also entered i up against Paterson on tho middle • scale. =====