DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 278, 20 August 1919, Page 2

DIVORCE COURT

. CLARKSON V. CLARKSON

PETITION DISMISSED WITH .COSTS $Tho further hearing of the, divorce Suit of Clarkson v. Clarkson was taken in tho Divorce Court' yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of J'irelve. Tho petitioner, William Clarkson, sought a dissolution of Ins marriago with Genevieve Clarkson on the ground of misconduct with William J. Mitchell, licenseo of tlio Post Offico Hotel, Palmerston North. Mr. T. Young appeared for tho petitioner, Mr. 11. F. O'Leary for tho rospondont, and Mr, A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. P. H. Putnam, for llio corespondent. Mr. S. Hill was foreman of tho jury. The respondent, Genevieve Clarkson, said that shc i was married to the petitioner 011 April 7, 1004, and they had one child, born in January, ,1905. Sho had known the co-respondent Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell for about twclvo years. They first became acquainted in Feilding in Easter, 1911. She and her husband wont to Hamilton, where they lived for five or six months, .when her husband went to America, The first intimation sho received of his i departure was a letter from the petitioner, He had gonS to Auckland, leaving ,£1 on tho dressingtable. - He Was'away two years. After tlio lapse of (about a year and nine months she received JilO from the petitioner. The respondent went, to Christelmroh to livo with her brother, who was licensee of an hotel. Sho remained at the Excelsior Hotel, Christclnircli, for a year, and in 191G she went to Tiinaru. In the interim she had received .nothing towards her maintenance. Tlio petitioner approached her with a view to getting a divorce on the grounds of desertion. She replied that it was' impossible. In June, 191G,i sho returned with him to .Wellington, where he started a garago. After fifteefi months slie decided that sho could no longer iivft with him, and she went to tho Post Office Hotel, Palmerston North. This was in.September, and she was engaged as a barmaid. During Mrs. Mitchell's absences from the hotel respondent acted as housekeeper. Mrs. Mitchell left the hotel on April S last for Wellington, and returned two days later. Witness usually occupied 'room 11, but on the evenings of April'3'.and i she occupied room No. 9; Mrs. Coffey was also in the room. She knew Mrs. Coffey, and as witness was not feeling ivoll sho occupied the same, room as Mrs. Coffey. Oil tho evening of April 4 sho went to her room about 9 o'clock, and was there before Mrs. Coffey came in. They got into bed about '10 p.m. Poom No.'ll had a Yalo lock and the door .locked itself. A week after this sho was served with a citation. Sho did hot- know Munns was in the hotel in 1917 for five days. . • To Mr. Gray: Sho was housekeeper at tho hotel up till tho time it was sold. Sho was in .control of tho servants, when Mrs.' Mitchell was away.' It was her duty tb go all over tho honso to see that everything was right. Sho denied any familiarity with, her employer, Mr. Mitchell.

Ann Mitchell, wife of the co-respon-dent', said prior to 1917 she knew Mr, and Mrs. Clarkwm. After her Husband took Hie Post Office Hotel Mrs. 1 Clarksoil camo to them as a barmaid. ■ Witness engaged her. and she came to the hotel on',September 14, 1917. Witness was not in good health, and it was arranged that sho should go to Kotornn, which she did early in October, and returned on December 1, the first day of tho six.o'clock closing.. When-witness was leaving for Rotorua sho appointed Mrs. Clarkson as housekeeper, and told tho staff to take their, instructions from her. On April 3' and" 4 witness was in Wellington. Mrs. Clarkson was not very well, and on receipt of a toleplione message from Mr. Mitchell she. went homo two days earlier than she intended.

• To Mr. Gray: She liatl implicit confidence in Mrs. Clarkson, and she did not ■believe the allegations, otherwise she wculd not he thero to give evidence. Elsie Clara Coffey, of Tnumariimii, gave' evidence corroborating tho statements of Mrs. Clarkson 'that they l>oth occupicd room No. 0 on April 3 and 4. AYiJliam J. Mitchell, co-respondent, said that the friendly relations between himself and his wife with Mr. and Mrs. Clarkson dated back some years ago, when they wero in Foilding. He gave flu absolulo denial to tho allegations.' Mrs. Clarkson was treated more as a member of the family than as a- servant. He remembered his wifo coming to Wellington in April. She left on Thursday, April 3, intending to return on Monday, but on Friday witness telephoned to his wife that Mrs. Clarkson was ill, and Mrs. Mitchell consequently relumed on Saturday. Witness (lid not know Munns and did not know until recently that he had stayed at tho hotel. He knew Mrs. Coffey, who stayed at»' tho hotel. She was a friend of the family. Me remembered Clarkson coming to fho house in September, 1917. ' Hi? mado a _ fool of himself, for lie was under tho influence of liquor, tie apparently realised that he was making a fool of himself, and went away. Clarkson tried to carry Mrs. Clarkson out of the.house. Mrs. Clarkson was' in charge of the siaff while Mrs. Mitchell was away, and she discharged lier duties satisfactorily. Joseph Lipscombe, police constable at Talmerston North, said he stayed at the Post Office Hotel for about tight, weeks. Mrs. Clarkson was manageress while Mrs. Mitchell was ill.- Mrs. Clarksin was in chargo of the staff. Ho saw no .improprieties while he ,was there. Ho bad visited tho hotel frequently since in the course of his duties.

In addressing the jury, Mr. Gray said that tho -action was one that was bolstered up, and pu,t forward by a mai} in desperate circumstances, who was not entitled to any confidence..

Mr. O'Leary, on behalf of the respondent, characterised the action as a "frame Up," and on the evidence it was impossible to return a verdict in favour of the petitioner. Tho honour of a good woman was at istake. The petitioner had absolutely failed to prove his case. . .

Mr. Young said tho point was whether the statements made by Muiins and Brewer owl corroborated by Clarkson were true or otherwise. Mumis's reputation as a private detective was at stake, and was it to be stiippwcd that lie would be guilty of delibe;-rite lies? Muniis had givon positive evidence, and .he cither spoke tho truth or he had perjured himself. His Honour said that a great deal of tinio had been wasted with irrelevant matters. Tho respondent had furnished a satisfactory explanation, and as far as money was concerned she., appeared to have been treated very badly. After reviewing tho evidence at some length, His Honour said ho. had never heard of such a case where one act of misconduct 'is alleged to have taken placo two years after another, and that made the basis of an action for divorce. His Honour, commenting on tho evidence given by Clarkson and Munns, said that lie did not think they could have looked through tho window without being seen, and His Honour could not understand why the two men did not go into the room and surprise the parties. Tho excuses made by Munns were not satisfactory. llis Honour did not think any credence could 1)3 given to tho evidence given by Clarkson. Tho issue, placed beforo tho jury was whether Mrs. Clarkson had been guilty of misconduct with tho co-respondent at the Post Oftico Hotel, Palmerston North, on or abou.t April ■}, and the jury answered the question in the negative. The petition was accordingly dismissed witli costs.