DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 286, 22 August 1918, Page 8

DIVORCE COURT

MARSIIMENT V. MARSHMENT

VERDICT FOR PETITIONER

•His Honour Mr. Justice Ho-idr,; and a Jury of twelve continued the hearing yesterday morning of tho petition of Alfred James Marshment for the dissolution of his marriago with Mary Ann Marshment, tho grounds of tho petition being the alleged misconduct of tho respondent with Frank Orlawski, who was named as the co-respondent. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the petitioner an'd Mr. F. YV. Jackson for the respondent. The cross-examination of Mrs. Orlawski, wife of tho co-respondent, was taken first. She said ahe separated from her husband because of his intimacy with Mrs. Marslmient. She separated on October 12, and signed a paper at a lawyer's office. Tho deed recited nothing more than unhappy differences. Sho never asked for any maintenance for herself, hut. she asked for 10s. a week each for her two children.

.Alfred James Marshmeiit, tho petitioner, recalled, said that on A.pril 24 this year, while driving his car to Newtown, he saw his wife and the corespondent together. He saw them on two subsequent occasions on the same day in tho streets of Wellington. Last Monday week he saw them together in Manners Street. They were standing on the edge of tho footpath. For the defence, _ Mr. P. W. Jackson asked His Honour if there was any evidence of misconduct to submit to the jury. The only evidence was that of Munns, which was unsatisfactory and inconclusive.

His Honour said that if it rested on the evidence of Munns alone it would perhaps be insufficient, but they had other evidence in support or tending to support the allegation of misconduct. Continuing, Mr. Jackson said that the respondent and co-respondent had a complete answer to tho allegation of misconduct. He suggested that this allegation rested mainly on the evidence of Munns, the detective agent, who was a paid agent, and therefore his evidenco should be corroborated. His client would give a total denial to the allegation that misconduct had taken place at Wanganui on March 20 and 27. It would be shown that on the se:ond night the co-respond-ent was not in the house.

I The respondent, Ma.ry Marshment said that as the. result of trouble early in llllu she was separated from the petitioner, and she 'obtained the custody of the children. She then went to work at some dining-rooms in Wanganui, and later went to work at a bojirdinghouse. She then went to Foster's Hotel, and she remained there until the time of the lire. Her children were being looked after by a Mrs. Hanson, but when tho latter was unable to 100k 1 after them any longer she (witness) decided to iake a house and keep boarders, which she had been doing all the timo she was married. Sho first met Orlawski on tho riverbank at AVanganui. She had had the house in Lowther Street; for a while before she left Poster's Hotel. Orlawski came as a boarder io the house a fortnight after the fire at Poster's. In tho house she occupied tho front double room with her children, and Orlawski occupied a back room. These were the only two furnished bedrooms in the house. Avitness strenuously denied that she ever had improper relations with Orlawski. She had intended leaving the Lowther Street house lis she was taking in another boarder, i\ man named AVebb. It was quite uiihuo to say that Orlawski was ever near her bedroom. On one of the nights mentioned by the private defective, Munns, when the latter said he heard a man's voice in her bedroom, there was no man in the house at; all. On Hie oilier occasion Webb, who was coming as a boarder, canto to the house on the evening lo pay a visif, but ho certainly did not. go into her room. When Hie ixtpers wcrt: served on her she asked Munns to read the citation. AVhen he had finished she said sho had no objection to her hu.sband obtaining a dvorce, but she did object to thii'co statements t'h.lt were contained in the citation, ilefore leaving, Minius staled that ho had no actual proof of misconduct, but circumstantial evidence only. She referred to the interview with .Mrs. Orlawski, in which tin; latter was alleged to have staled thai Orlawski was married to her. that she had been forced by her mot'iiM' to marry Orlawski, and that she had been very unhappy since she had been married. A statement that Orlawski had his arms about her on the river bniik on one occasion was absurd and absolutely false. She denied having seen her husband ut all the time she was in Wellington. She denied ever being kissed by Orlawski, ,ts alleged by Munits.

Cross-examined, witness dialed that she met Orlawski about six weeks before he was separated' from his wife. She never went out wilh Orlawski at any time; no appointments for meeting were ever made. She did not know that Mrs. Orlawski objected to her talking to her husband. When she had Ihe interview with .Mrs. Orlawski the bitter desired her to know that he was not a single man, and witness understood from her that there was ' trouble between them, and that Mrs. Orlawski was going to Wellington. Later she met Orlawski and asked him if he was a married man. Ho said he was and was not. He said his wife had sold up Ihe home and gone to Wellington. There were five rooms in Ihe house in Lowther Street. Wanganui. There were two 'bedrooms, cue in front, in which I here was a double bed, and also a back bedroom. The.hoy slept in the back bedroom, and witness ami her daughter slept in the front bedroom until Orlawski enme lo the house as a boarder. "Until March 25 Orlawski was the only hoarder in the house. Munns's statement that, witness and Orlawski wont for a wall; was correct, but ho did not see them come 'back. There was no possibility of,'mistaking Webb for Orlawski." 'When'she left: Lowther Street Orlawski continued as a boarder until he was transferred to Wellington, which was about a week before the fire occurred.

Frank Orlawski, fireman on the Government railways, said he went to board with Mrs. Marshment about a fortnight after the fire at Poster's Hotel. He occupied the back bedroom of the l.owther Street house, in which (here was a single bed. He paid 275. (id. per week 'board. On March 2G last he ircturned from work about 0 p.m., and before changing his clothes he want with Mrs. MaTshmenl's boy to the riv'r fishing for flounders. He had never been in Mrs. Marslimeiit's bedroom at any lime, liver since be was married, over five years «go, his wife and he had not been happy. His wife liked finer clothes than he couid afford, and always wanted to go away and work for herself, also to go to Christcliureh to have a good lime with a friend who had left her husband. His wife had accused him of infidelity, (brew household articles at him, and sold half his furniture, so a separation order was agreed to.

Cross-examined, witness fail he had been at the last Troulhani races with Mrs-.' Marsh men t. but had not gone out with her. lie had only known Airs. Alarsh incut for about live or six weeks before he was separated from his wife. He had never discussed the latter with Airs. Marahment.

Kenneth AVebb said lie worked at tho railway' shops at Easlown, AVanganui. Ho knew Airs. ALarshment, and boarded at her house in Argyle Street. He went thcro on Easter Tuesday, and stayed there until the houso was burned down. Orlawski whs also a boarder there. Airs. Marshmcnt and her two children were also living in the house. Ho did not board with her at Lowther Street; lie intended to do so. hut tho liousc was not convenient. He went to her house in Lowther Street on two or three occasions. Ho was there on Alarcli L'li to find out what progress she had mado with respect to finding another home. Airs. Marshmcnt and her two children wero there, nlso another child. He did not see Orlawski there. He slaved in the house, from S p.m. to about; fl.Sfl p.m. He. was quite sure Orlawski was not in Hie house during the lime he (witness) was there. Airs. Marshment's bedroom was in the front of tho house, and he had never been in it at any time. The children went to lied before lie left iho house, and they went into their mother's room. lie went to the house on (he following night; he did not see Orlawski there, He knew Orlawski was a boarder

thore. Ho went to tlio bouse for the purpose of meeting Orlawski, On the lollowing day lie went to see the new house in Argyle Street. Ho walked to this place witli Mrs. Marshment. Cross-exiimiucd, witness said that the first occasion lie knew that ho would bo called to give evidence in the case was ono day last week. Ho did not think ho would ho mistaken by anyone lor Orlawski. He went to tho Lowther Street house on three occasions before he finally decided to board with Mrs. Marsluncnt. He agreed to pay 275. (id. a week for his board.

Stanley Marshment, 13 years of age, son of tnc petitioner, said he lived with his mother in Wanganui. They lived in Lowther Street, and Mr. Orlawski ciuno to tire lionso as a boarder. Witness slept in the front room, in which his ni'j;/)':.- and sister also slept. Mr. Orlawski slept in the back room. From j\o\.- ! .mir Street they went to live in Street. He repiembered a man Crtlivii/ lit the school and questioning him. 'J'lie boy repeated the conversation that passed between him and Mwnns. Cross-examined, witness aaid he'called Mr. Orlawski unele, and his mother called him Frank. He never saw Orlawski kiss his mother before he left tho house to go to work.

The ease for the defence having concluded, Mr. Blair asked permission to call two conductors, who had witnessed from tho tram an incident referred to by the petitioner and deniod by respondent. Both witnesses gave evidence which supported the petitioner's statements. The jury retired at 5 p.m. and returned twenty minutes Inter with a verdict |in favour of the petitioner. His Honour J granted a decree nisi. The question j a?; to the custody of tho children was ! held over. BETH USE V. BETHUNE. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday morning heard tho petition of Annie Bethune, of Stawell, Victoria, for the dissolution ot her marriage with Angus Bethune. Mr. A. Dunn appeared for tho petitioner, and the ease was undefended. _ Tho petition set out that the parties wero married at North liiclunnnd, Victoria, in ISSS, and in 1903 the respondent came to New Zealand with tho expressed intention ><f making a home for his wife, but had failed to supply her with/maintenance or provide her with moiiey to come to New Zealand. The petition further alleged that sinco 1909 tho re- • rx; ,r liml willuliy deserted the petilioivo without cause; that since 1899 he had been an habitual drunkard, and that to th-:> best of petitioner's belief tho respondent was now resident at Taradale, llnwkp's Bsv. After hearing evidence His 110-io'iv granted a decree nisi with against respondent.