LAND AGENT'S DIVORCE SUIT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 44, 16 November 1920, Page 3

LAND AGENT'S DIVORCE SUIT

PEAT V.PEAT HEAVY DAMAGES CLAIMED In tho Divorce Court yestcrdnv morning, His Honour Mr. Justice falwnr'iW and a jury of twelve, of whom Mr. W. Prince was foreman, began the hearing of the case of Harcourt Eugene J.ouia Poat, land'agent. Feilding. who'nought it dissolution of his marriage with Dorothy Edith Peat, on the ground of misconduct, the co-respondent cited bolus William Beauchamp-lllatts. ' The f>u~i-. tioner claimed -CiOOO damages. Sir John .Jindlay, K.C.. with him .Mr. W. Perrv, Appeared for the petitioner; !Mr. A. M. Ongley, of Palmerstou North, IV th« ■'respomlont; ami Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.U., with him Mr. D. M. Hhdlay, for the co-respomlont. ' : Sir John I'indlay, in opening, said tnai the parties were married on April 14, 1915, at Marlon. Mrs. Pent was 24 yearn of. age and thore irns one child, n girl, born on January 8, 1917. The petitioner nnd his wife lived happily for some time, mid the petitioner, though in .a small tvay of business, did well, and established <i good home. Prior'to September, 1917, the petitioner.was satisfied that his wife .was faithful lo him. In that month she came to Wellington and stayed with some relatives at Goldie's Brae. She then saw a good deal of the.co-respondent, and on her return to Feilding she told lier hus- , band that she had been to the co-respon-dent's'office to see his typist, who was her personal friend, and that the corespondent kissod her. The petitioner by- ; came angry, and' Mrs. Pent explained .that Beauehamp-Platts was an old man, old enough t> H be her grandfather. • On this the petitioner passed the, matter '. over. , • . : ' An Unsigned. Letter. In April, 1918, the-respondent left Feilding to go to Christchurch. On her way down she stayed'with her aunt nt Knllihrn, and eventually wont to Christchurch. In May, 19)8, counsel alleged, the respondent, received a letter from the co-respondent which was unsigned and written in a disguised hand: This letter, which counsel read, he, claimed whs written by Beauehamp-Platts, and said that if'it were written by him it established : unequivocal evidence .of illicit Mations. On May 17 respondent left tho place where shn was staying, jiving as a reason tnat .'she was going to stay with a friend, and would, return to Wellington tho next day. Instead of going to her friend, .she wont to AVarner's Hotel, and took a room, No. 87, for the night. _ Heauchamp-Platfr? also stayed at the hotel that night, and engaged room No. 31. 'JTio rooms occupied by the resjiondent and co-respondent were oh-the same floor and close together, and counsel '.contended that misconduct occurred in one or other of the rooms. They returned to Wellington the next day together, nnd Mi's. Peat wont on to Feilding. She brought back from Christ'.church somo very expensive blouses and •hoes, nnd when questioned she gave on explanation which was false. From the time she returned from her visit to Christchurch, 'her attitude^towards her husband' and child changed considerably. She began to go out almost every night, ' leaving her husband and. child at home. She spent a good deal of time nt tin) Skating Kink nt Feilding, and neglected hor husbaiid and child. The petitioner, who suffered from the' effects of enteric, and pleurisy, resented the attitude of hi""wife, but he was in no way suspicious. Second Visit to Christchurch. . Mrs. Peat went again to Christchurch about February, 1919, and whilo there she asked tho gentleman at whose home sho hud stayed the previous year, and who had: obtained possession of the unsigned letter, if he wouTd'return the letter to her. In. July, or Augv.it, 1919, she was in Wellington, and had been here nevoral times since. On. her return home after these visits she had informed' her husband that she had. seen Beauchamp-Pktts and.had had,afternoon tea with him. On one occasion in 1919, she came to Wellington to stay with her relatives, but instead of doing ao she stayed at'trhe .Arcadia Hotel; on her return homo she ; "was-questioned by her husbind, and she .etaled that Boaucbnmp-Phifts bad paid .; her expenses. "If that be true," remarked counsel, ."why did this man want to pay the hotel -'expenses of another man's wifo?" The petitioner became angry, and warned her not to do such a thing again. Once more she explained that Beaucbnmp-Platls was an old man, old enough to bo her grandfather. In June of this-year Mrs. Pent insisted on coining down to, Wellington to sea u girl friend off to Sydney. The'p'etitinnor bad known this girl and disliked liw. He objected to his wife coming to Wellington, but she defied him, borrcrwod money from a relative, and came down to Wellington.. It wns alleged that the girl 6he had conic to Wellington."'to see went awny to Sj'dney with a man to whom she was not married. On Juno 15 the respondent telegraphed to her .husband th.it she was returning by tho Main Trunk train/which"she did. The next day he saw her writing letters, aid the way she was doing it "made him Auspicious. There woro two letters addressed to two women, and they wore left for petitioner to post. Ho got permission to do no. but instead of posting them he opened and read thorn. Sir' John Findlay road the letters to. the Court, and pointed out. that Mrs. Poat never referred to men in her Tetters by. thoir propor names; but 'used the'.names of girls.' Tho name* "Bertha," "Phyllis," nnd, "Pattio," it/ was Alleged, all referred to Kcnuchamp- , Plaits. The petitioner-communicated tho 'contents oi the letters to Mrs; Peat's linronts. who came to ills House to see Mrs. Peat. Petitioner then to'ld her that instead of posting the two letters he bad opened them, and hnd' told her parents. The petitioner 'also asked her if she had misconducted, herself with • 'Snooks," a person referred to in one of her letlen). "Snooks" was described Civil Servant high' up in thescrvice.. Mrs. Peat,counsel alleged, admitted misconduct with "Snooks," but as they were unable tu obtain corroborative evidence of Mrs. Peat's statements they ware 'unable to proceed in that direction, and they bad made exhaustive inquiries. After referring 'to the separation of the paities,; Sir John I'indlny - proceeded to call evidence. Petitioner's Evidence. The petitioner gave evidence on the lines ol counsel's, opening remarks. He stated that in May, 1918, when hie wife was in Christchurch, she wrote and told him the week .before she returned not to send any money, as liho had plenty. She also stated that she was going .to stay one night with a friend before returning. She brought home from Christchurch two crepe de chine 'blouses; w/irth Ife. each, '•' which she said she won in an art union, and a pair of suede shoes, which Bho fluid she bought froiu ho*r cousin. In Juno • Inst his wife's friend, Doris Bnrlow, st»y- ---' ed with them from June 2 for about ten days, '>nd then came on to Wellington. His wife insisted on accompanying her to Wellington nnd seeing her oil lo Sydney. The petitioner objected to her going and refused'to give Jier any money. Slife persisted; and borrowed money from- her mother.to get awny. Witness went to the stntion nnd gave her some money its he did not wish her to run short of funds. On June 28, two davs before she left him,'she wns ,in the" kitchen writing letters. She wrote two letters, and he noticed that she covered up the correspondence when, on one occasion, he had to look acros*. the table where she was writing. He decided then that he would have to solve the problem; When she finished her letters she went to bed. the letters being left on the table for him to post. He opened the letters nnd communicated the contents to his' wife's pnronts, nnd promised them that he would not say n word to his wife'until they, came to see 'her. He led his wife to believe that he had posted .her letters. Witness did not go to bed at all that night. I'.nrly next . morning his wife's parents came to the house ns arranged, and us they were coming towards the back door witness told his wife, that he had opened her letters nnd communicated «"»' contents to her parents. In the presence of the latter he asked her if die had anything tosav. She said, "It is all true and I deny" nothing." Witaw* asked if she lovckl the man "-Snooto" referred to m her letter. She said 'she did, but domed having committed adultery. Sho said i * ""is his fault for playing tho sneak nnd o,)enin<* her letters. Witness made arr dements with hi* wifes mother for en intonauce of-bis wife and allowed her i a week. Witness came to 'Wei-' I

lington and i-riecl to find out what lie could about-"Snooks," He made all the inquiries he could in Wellington and Christchurch, and handed the results lo his (solicitor, lie got the flint'letter, tho unsigned one, front Mr. liubilo, of Cliristchturcli, at whose house Mrs. Peat stopped, ill 1918. Cross-examination. To for. Ongley: He was 31 years old when he married and his wife was 19 years old. He was in a sanatorium just before marriage. He contracted enteric in South .Africa. He denied that his marriage wan not a happy one, and denied that there was any meanness on his part. His wife knew that lis had lieeu in debt. ]In did object to his wife weaving her best shoes when washing, and ho did object to her wearing a particular bangle on every occasion, because the bangle belonged to his dead sister. lie had shaken her, but had never Btrnck linr. 'In April or May. 1919, her parents took her away from home. Thut was the second and last timo* that be shook bis wife; on that occasion she fell down. "Up (o 1018 there were no differences of any consilience between thein. After her visit to Cbtristehuch she seemed to have changed, and was frequently away from home in the evenings. His inquiries disclosed that "Snooks" was the brother of Mrs. Leach, and undo of Doris Barlow, who wore friends of bis wife. Witness accused a man named Turner of misbehaviour, and wlit'ii witness tackled him he said, "It is no use going for me, I have no money." Ho accused her of misconduct with "Snooks," but never accused his wife or Beauchnmp-I'lntts. of misconduct together. After the child was taken away his wife took • proceedings for separation and .maintenance, but t'.'le proceedings were adjourned because his petition in divorce had been tiled. First Visit to Wellington. ,'l'o Mr, Skerrett: September, ID 17, was the first occasion on which his wife went to Wellington or Christchurch. She was away for about a week and stayed with petitioner's hunt. When sto came back she toW him that she had inquired for a typist who had been employed by Beauchnmp-Platts, and that' the latter had kissed hr.r. He had not known •Hcjuiehamp-Platts at that time except by hearing of him through bis wife. He would bo surprised to U-nrn that that interview between his wife and Bcati-cbnmp-Platts took place in 1919 and not in 1917. Mr.-Skerrett: We will give, you a surprise before we have finished. Witness also said that his wife's second, visit to Wellington was in MlB, when she stayed n few days with her aunt in Kelburn, and' then went on to Cliristchurch. She returned' hioroe about May 21. Ho posted three letters to Beauchnmp-Platts at his wife's request. That would be prior to -her visit to Christchurch. 1918. He did net. suggest t!<at his wife's letter.from Christchurch, telling him to send no more money, was anything more than an intimation that ho' had already sent her enough money, flis wife cfline to Wellington in July or •\ugiist 1919, with her mother and stayed nt the Arcadia Hotel. Wl'lni his wife told him that Beauehamp-Platts had paid her hotel expenses he was very angrv, but he did not write to Bonu-clinnip-Platts and offer to return the money. He found later that "Incle, Mr« 'Lench's brother, pnid part of her hotel bill, 'but witness did not offer to return tho money. He-was angry with his .wife and told her she wo-s not to borrow' money from any one. He had associated his wife's name with four men in Feilding. She fold him that zWp. met Beancbamp-Platts'when he visited her fatWs homo in Hunlerville. Lhe t\yo rooms in' Warner's' Hotel, were not in the same passageway; one room was round tho angle. •At.'this stngo the case was adjourned until this morning.