DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 277, 19 August 1919, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT

CLARKSON V. CLARKSON

MISCONDUCT WITH PUBLICAN

ALLEGIiD

IT.is Honour Mr. Jusfcico Edwards and a Jury of 12 heard tho divorce suit of AViUiiim Clnrkson, who sought a dissolution of his mniriago with Gonevicvo Clarksou oil tho gi'ound of mi6conduct with 'William J. Mitchell, liceuseo of tho Post Oliico Hotel, l'almerstou North.

Mr. T. Young appeared for t ; he petitioner, Mr. If. F. O'Leary for the respondent, and ilr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. P. H. Putnam, for the co-re-sponden't.

. Mr. S. Hill was foreman of the jury. Mr. Young, in opening, said that Clurkson was a motor agent and was married to tho respondent on April 7, 1901, at Cluistehureh. In 1911 he went to America to see what he could do with a patent, and then Mrs. Clnrkson took up a position as barmaid. Clarksou was away laager than, 'lie expected, hut returned in 1013 ami was rejoined by his wife, ' Business, however, did not impro-: 5, and in 1917 it was arranged beClarkson and his wife that tho fitter should take a position as barmaid at the Post Office Hotel. r Palmerston North, the co-respondent being then tho licensee. It wwis allep;«l that it was while so employed that the misconduct took place. Lucy Ada Gosling, wife of L. Gosling, said tllmt while her husband wa.s away at tho \var she. took a position as housemaid at the Post Office Hotel, then kept by Mr. Mitchell. She remembered Mrs. Clarksou coming to tho hotel as barmaid. Witness related tfliat she saw during tho absence of Mrs. Mitchell.

To Mr. O'Leary: Mrs. Mitchell was in ill-health, and her absence from tho hotel was due to this. She did think Mrs. Mitchell was a wronged woman, but witness did not toll her so. When Mrs. Mitchell was away Mrs. Clarkson took charge, but witness did not take any instructions from Mrs. Clarkson. Witness admitted that she was dismissed by Mrs ; Clarkson.and,received wages for 48 hours' in lieu of notice.

To Mr. Gray: The first person to whom she mentioned certain . incidents was Mr. Young, solicitor for the petitioner. She had previously spoken tn Mr. Clarkson on the. subject; that was aftar.Easter this year.. She never told anybody that she intended to got evon with Mitchell and Mrs. Clarkson. ' William Clarkson, tho petitionor, said he was a motor agent-carrying on business in Wellington, and wtw married to respondent, at Christehuroh cn April 7, 1804.7 In 1911 ho went to America in connection with a patent, and was away for two yesurs. It was arranged that his wife should remain in Hamilton whilo ho was away,. as he did not expect to he more than three.months from New Zealand. His wife went to Christehuroh and later took up a position as barmaid. Witness returned in 1913 and lived with his wife. Witness had not been doing very well in business, and his wife decided to again work as a barmaid and went to the Pest Office Hotel abr/ut Septombor, 191". , Mr. Mitchell was the licensee and was known to, the parties. He had occasion to go to the hotel one evening—that was on September 29, 1917. Ho arrived at the hotel about 7.30 p.m. and v saw his wife. • He was not permitted to stay at tho hotel that night because there was no room available. 'He saw his wife tie next morning (Sunday) and asked her to accompany him to ICimbolton, but she declined. Two months later_ ho saw her in Wellington, ■and they discussed tlio question of maintenance. It was arranged that he should pay her 30s. a week. ' About three months later ho saw her and suggested that she should leave the hotel and he would pay hor £2 per week, but she declined. Witness described investigations made by himselt, an inquiry agent, and a young man named Brewer. Li reply to Mr. O'leavy tho petitioner admitted that his wife, although the matter of this visit to Amerioa had been discussed by them, did not know Uio exact date on which he was to sail. He admitted that some time after his return he suggested that it would be better to get ■ a divorce than live as they were doiig then, but he had not proposed that false. grounds should be put forward. At one time ho and Mitclie l had- been in business together at l 1 eliding, when they and their wives were on the best of '-.errna. . Bert William Munns, private detective, of the firm of Dinnie and Miunns, described tho wviloll kept upon the respondent and co-respondent, To Mr. O'Leary: He had known Mrs. Clarkson prior to soiiitf to tho hotel Mr. Clarkson. He saw her at the hotel when he stayed tihere for two days. Ho was there then on Mr. Clarkson's instructions. lie got no ovidence on that occasion. Mrs. Mitchell was at the hotel. Ho was there at least one night when Mrs. Mitchell was not there. He was not prepared to say ho was not at tho hotel four or five days. He did not hear Brewer ask Clarkson for something on account whiLo they were in Brewers room at the hotel. To Mr. Criuy: He was firat employed by Clarkson two years ago, and he went to the hotel, "but could obtain no evidence. The firm was beiiifj _ paid by Otarkson. and he was being paid by the day. The notes in his book were written up on April 5, while in Brewer s room at the hotel. Clarkson wanted to go into Mitchell's room, but witness wouid not let him. They had no right on the promisee. He was afraid it would bo made very unpleasant for them. His Honour: Do you mean to suggest that that was the reason why you did not go into the room? Witness: We might have been taken for burglars. Goodness knows what would have happened. Besides, Mr. Justice Cooper in one of his judgments in a divorce suit said that a detective had no business to go into a room, His Honour: The latter is a silly reason. 1 Witness: I was afraid we might get a "hiding.". . His Honour: That is a cowardly reason. You had your clothcs on and you cou'kl have got out of the room and disappeared down tho stairs before the publican could have got near you in his shirt tails. 1 Douglas Arthur Brewer, motor mechanic; in the employ of the petitioner, said ho was sent to Palinerston North by the midday train, and reached tho Post Office Hoipl about D p.m. He' saw the petitioner and Munns later in the evening and made certain arrangements.

To Mi'. Gray: Ho stayed at the hotel in tilie mime of Sinclair. Thero wore two beds in the room, No. G, which he occupied at tho hotel. lie 'lanced into Mitchell's room from the balcony when ho was in the hoted a fortnight before April 4. Ho was there at tho request of Clarkson, and ho went thero to spy on Mrs. Glarkson. Ho only stayed tho night at the hotel on that occasion. Ho was not paid for ltis services—it was pari: of the day's work.

This ooncludod the case for the petitioner, and as there were several witnesses to bo heard on 'behalf of tho respondent and co-respondent, His Honour adjourned tho further hearing of the case until to-day. HANCOCK V. HANCOCK. His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) granted a decreo nisi to ho nw.do absoluto in three months in tho case of Herbert llancoclc, of Wellington, who sought a dissolution of his marriage with Alice Maria Hancock, on the ground (if desertion. Mr. H. E. Evans appeared for tho Tbetitioncr, -who stated that tho respondent left him in 1913, since when nothing had been heard of her. Corroborative ovidenco was Riven by petitioner's brother.