CHARGE OF ADULTERY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 211, 1 June 1920, Page 6

CHARGE OF ADULTERY

AND CLAIM FOR £500 DAMAGES CASE NOT CONCLUDED Charles Frederick Ammon, whose suit lor ■Uvoi-co from DaiSy Ooraldino Mary Am niou was partly heard yesterday, sought to recover from William Jicilly (co-rtspoiident) £500 damages for aiicecd adultery. Mr. Justlco Eatrtirds was ou the bondli. A jury of twelve was empanelled. Mr. A. B. Sievwright appeared for petitioner Mr V. W. Jackson for respondent, and Mr A. W. Blair for the co-respou-d Tn t 'liis petition Ammon described ruined? asYfarmer r^«D f at Whonwino moua, Taranaki. lie stated that. h» «■ ried tho rwpondout at ivondalo, Auckl ml, in April. 1912, and lived with, her at lienaersbdi at Auckland, at Waiourr, a, le Kuiti. »id elsewhere. They had ono ehilu, | born on October 15, 1913. In or about So month of September, 1918 «W?n*f« committed adultery with Wi iam Jlcmy. «, tramways employee, ana sho was at present Uviub iu adultuy W \ti«oner°'^ an e d vilienee- tliat he sailed from C ZellinaVitn the lixp.ettnloiiury &I.C 1917, and arrived back, | ply iU impa[r C e U d in health on Christmas [£f■£ 5S S « and was torMdden marital intercourse and Save Pcti oner had several illnesses, md as in and out of hospital two or ?.;»» t-impi Ho was admitted to bowiy Bay I&l in tho first week: ot .only. 1918 Bespondcnt, in the company of seyora others, visited him once and *l»ed For about half an hour. Since July, m». ho had not, spoken to his wife, lie had had no intercourse with her since torch 017 While ho was ignorant of his wiles Sotol in December, 1919, prompted tarn to ailat the ofllce of tboßMMtriir ofMrtto. n'lmrn he obtained a ccrtincato Bno\u»< 'thai his wife had given birth to a child nn Time 22 1919. and had named him as Z father 2 ' He then instituted tho. w* B t, P A&fflrtto Eden testified that Kellly came to her saying he had got n woman into trouble. He asked her fc. assist him. Witness took Mrs. A mn ' o « into her house, it being agreed that. liou J should pas'lo3 a week for the ch Id, aged live and that Mrs. Ammon should assist n the liou ework. Mrs. Ammon did no pay witness anything. Heßpondent w at that time expecting a child,, «» «h was born at St. Helens Home on June n 1919. Bcilly stayed at the house but in another room than that occupied bv Mrs. Ammon. Bcilly told witness that Mrs. Ammon said he was the father of tho ch'ld. WIS and Kcilly saw to.tbe reruova of Mrs Amnion when she had to be taken to the hospital. Witness was J>w»«« tho citation papers wero served on the respondent and the - co-respondent. Both Eeilly and Mrs. Amnion received tho paner„ at a house in Moturoa Street. John M'Bride, railway porter was calico by Mr. Sievwright to support Petitioners claim that ho had had no access to he respondent. Witness testified that Ammon was a temperate man.

Case for Respondent. Mr. Jackson briefly opened tho case lot tho respondent, and called Mrs. Ainmon to trivti evidence. , , • ~, ' . Mrs. Amnion stated that she did no. meet Ainmon when he returned from the war because sho did not know ho was returning. Sho denied petitioner s statement that ho did not cohabit with her after his return. She claimed that no was the father of her child, and that months bctoro tho child was born she told him of her condition. Witness had known Reilly for some time. She„ n » cutioned to him that Blie wished to find a place in which to live, and Redly suggested that there might be a vacancy at Irs. Eden's. So far as witness know, there was no arrangement that Reilly should pay 10s. a week for the child she then had. Tho co-rcßpomlcvit was not a.ware of Her condition when he found her lodgings at Mrs. Eden's. Witness paid£l ;»■ week to Mrs. Eden. She never admitted that Reilly was the father of her child. To Mr. Blair; Witness used to know ths co-respondent when sho was single. In the house in Moturoa Street Reilly occupied a detached room. Witness occupied a back bedroom with her two children, and the front rooms were let. She j prepared lleilly's meals and Reilly paid hoi £1 a week for her housekeeping. Under cross-examination by Mr. oicv wright, witness told the Court that she was present when Mrs. Edou obtained legal advice upon tho correct way of registering the child of a married woman when the father of the child was not the woman'? husband. It was witness who registered the birth of tho child. She wontt to Uto office alone. Mr. Jackson called the assistant manager of tho People's Palace, Cuba Street, to substantiate Mrs. Ammon'a statement that she stayed at the "Palace" on certain specified dates. (Mrs. Ammon s allegation was that her husband cohabited with her on those occasions and that pregnancy resulted.) Witness produced the register of the establishment, and pointed to entries of tho name "Ammon." After scrutinising" tho entries, Mr. Wevwright asked witness whether it was not apparent that "Ammon" had in two instances been written over the name "Ings" (pencilled out) and in two others over some word no'longer legible. Witness replied that it was. ' . , , Mr. Justice Edwards then examined the book.

His Honour (to witness): You don't sub-. cost, that these were accidents?-Witness: 'I don't know anything about the entries." I'm not blaminp: you m the least, you merely broueht the book. You don't knotv how these alterations came to be made?— "No "

You can't suggest \ny proper reason for the making of them?—" No." Elizabeth Guiiniiigilam, who lived'at, Airs. Eden's while lleilly and Mrs. Amnion were in tho house stated thai she observed l nothing improper or specially intimate in the relations between respondent and corespondent. Francis Leonard Eden, husband of tho witness Mrs. Eden, gave similar evidence. "My Wife Told 'He .., ." Mr. Blair: Was any statement made by your wife to you as to what she had been offered for her services in connection with this case?— Witness:. "Yes. My wife told me that Amnion had ofiered £50, and probably £75 if he won his case." Mr. Sievwright: When did Mrs. Eden tell you this?—" Just lately. T cannot remember the date."

Was it the day after tho paporE were served?—"l decline to answer that question. I havo said that I cannot remember the particular date. Counsel pursued the matter further, but received nothing more definite than the answer that it was "before May 1, at any rate." Mr. Sievwright: Suppose Mrs. Eden goes into the box and swears that she never mado any such statement?— Witness: "Sho can't deny it." Pressed further, witness said: "And my wife told me only the day before yesterday that yon would put in a claim for Jtioi) for her expenses." Counsel; Hid you ask her where. I would put this in?— Witness: "I asked her what it was for. She said it was for her expenses." What expenses?—" That is what I don't know." His Honour: Where was Mr. Sievwright going to put'in this claim? Witness: I don't know.. His Honour: This is. insanity, or something! Witness: It's what she told me. His Honour: It must be insanity, because it's absolute nonsenso. It can have no meaning. It is impossible for it to have any meaning at all. Mr. Sievwright (to witness): Will sho have any expenses?— Witness: ''I-, don't know what she is going to have." • Mrs. Eden . has sworn that in a conversation in your presenco Mrs. Amnion said lleilly was tho father of her child? —Eden (thumniug the witness-box with his fist): "Never!"

Mr. Blair was about to open the corespondent's case and pall evidence when His Honour adjourned the Court till this morning.