DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 46, 18 November 1920, Page 6

DIVORCE COURT

MRS. PEAT'S DEFENCE

'PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS DENIED 3

/.-Initio Supremo Court yesterday, before ■■His-Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of 12, further hearing, was taken of the, Peat divorce case, in which Hareourt LEugene Lewis Pent, of Feildiug, proceeded Vagaiiisfc Dorothy JOdith Pent, on the .ground of adultery. William Beauehanip;Platts, of Wellington, was named as coTespondont. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. W. Perry, appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. A. Ongley was counsel for the respondent The, co-respondent tras Represented by Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. D. M. Findlay." The petitioner also claims c£looo damages. Yesterday was the -third day of, the hearing. In tho unavoidable absence of Mr. Ongley yesterday, Mr. A. B. Sievwright appeared for tho respondent by permission of His Honour. . * • Further evidence was given by Arthur Mourant, who was cross-examined by Mr. Skerruit. • Ho stated that in both sets of handwriting produced ill the. court there wore similarities and also dissimilarities. Witness considered that the anonymous letter had been written by a man who had disguised his hand-w.nting to a certain extent. Witness admitted that he relied on tho fact that certnm letters were formed similarly in both sets of . hand-writing. . . In his address to the jury, Mr. bievwright maintained that the respondent was absolutely guiltless. Her evidence, •ho. submitted, would disprove any suggestion of impropriety on her pa.it. The Respondent's' Story.

. In giving evidence, tlie respondent said that she was .married to the petitioner m April, -1915, being "then 19 years ot age. Her husband had been in .a,- sanatorium before she married him. "Witness believed her husband -was about 31 yearsi of age (it tho timo of the marriage. Ha hail never led her to believe that he had fought in the South African War, although ho had often spoken of the siege .' of Kimberley, and had said that a. shell, had injured hie foot. Respondent said , that tlio petitioner treated her well during the first six months of her Married 'life, .'but after that he bccamo different. On several occasions he accused her of unduo 'extravagance. Besides complaining that sue n-as too extravagant in her dress, he said that she burnt too much wood under. the stove and the copper, saying that his mother had never used so much wood when she was keeping house. He very rarely took her out, as he always us«!d to retire at a very early "Within a year of our marriage, said •the respondent, "my husband began to ill-treat me, and prior to the birth of our child'used to 'thump mo and kick me, bruising me badly. Alter the child was born, lie used to rail at me about) my extravagance, and at breakfast once seized me by- the throat, finally knocking me to the floor. It was after this that my mother came and •'found me, later taking me home. . . . In my presence, my father spoke to Peat and told him what a despicable thing he had 'done. My s. attitude was t one of defiance." Respondent said further that . from then on her life was made unhappy. ..She alleged disgusting conduct on the part of' the petitioner, saying that he called her awful names, adding, 'This '■killed' all the lovo and affection I ever had for .the man." She met BeauchampPlotte and Ms wife at .Hunterville, in 1912. She had been told that they were coming by a Miss Dora Saxion, who had on one occasion been employed by the co-respondent. The . next time respond'ont met Beaiichamp-Platts was in April, 1918. "I vfent to nis office to ask lvim for the address of Miss Saxton, who t was then married," added the respondent. "He gave ma this and told me to go and see his wife, which I did.' As a matter of fact I told Mrs. BeauchampjPlatts that I was going to Chnstcluircli, ,nnd in addition gave her my address fhere." ' • Statements Denied.

' Continuing, -Mis. Peat said she stayed • with the Rubinos while in Cliristchurch. While .she -.was there Be«uchanip-Platt3 "eent her an invitation to dine with Mrs. Beauohamp Platts and himself at Warner's Hotel, in addition asking her to . 1 bring her friend: The invitation was . for May 17. "On -the morning of May 17," said the respondent, "I decided to leave the Rubinos, as Mr. Rubino had ■ made improper suggestions to me, and I was not going to stand it. Tho statement made about a Mi's. Liversey is falsa—l did not oven know such a per- ,, 6Qii then. So that.sanle nKfr'ning I went to Warner's Hotel." On the same even- . . ing, witness continued, Mrs. Rubino and . hiereelf hiadi dinner witji BeauchampPtatts, and later went to tho pictures. "'When I told him I was going back to , Wellington," she said, "he kindly offered to see to my luggage, and the -result was .that we went to the boat-train in a taxi." On arrival in Wellington tho .co-respondent 'accompanied her to her ftuntfa houso in Relburn, and returned to his own residenoe. She denied having seen the co-respondent after lie left (for his own house. "It is absolutely untrue that Beauchamp-Platts kissed me," said the witness, "and it is also untrue

that I ever told my husband that he had kissed me. . . . I absolutely deny ever having committed adultery with the co-respondent." In answer to a question, witness admitted having asked Rubino for the let--tera previously referred to, and that lie had replied that (10 could not then lay his hands upon them. Mrs. Rubino had , told witness that she had had a disturbance with her husband, and that he had broken open the drawer in which . jhe kept her private papers, and iiad jfound. • letters and clippings she kept there. Mrs. Rubino had told

witness that lier husband had mentioned divorce proceedings. "Mrs. asked ,ond implored me to try to get- the letters from Rubino," added.Mrs. Peat. Respondent admitted that " she had met Beauchamp-Platts -igain while on a visit to. Wellington in October, 1919. It was iintrue, however, that he had paid' her bill at the Arcadia pri- * vate hotol, and she had not told her husband that he liad. i A this stage, the question'of the man "Snooks," referred to in the incriminating letter, was raised. Respondent explained that! "Snooks" was tho brother ' qf Mrs. Leech, the lady with whom sho had stayed at the Empire, Mrs. Leech's daughter, Miss Barlow, also being there. "It wns a sort of farewell parity for Dora Barlow," snjid Mrs. Peat, "but when I learned the thrifT of tho hote'., I jtold Mrs. Leech I couldn't afford to stay there. When I suggested going to the Arcadia again, Mrs. Leech objected, and finally 'Snooks' offered to pay the difference. which he did. I paid what I could of the hotel bill." The Girls' Nam". In answer to Mr. Sievwri'ijht, the respondent gave nn explanation of -ilhn girls' nameu, which it was alleged represented those of men. "Phyllis and Plattie both refer to Mr. 'BeauchampPlatts," said the. witness. "In letters among Mrs. Rubino, Miss Lanauzc, and ... myself, I used tio speak of the co-respond-ent 'in those terms. . . . Tho name Bertha, which also was used, did not refer to Mr. Benuclianip-Plntts, but to tho man in Christchurcli to whom I was introduced as a single girl—as 'MiSs Audrey.' 'S.S.' was oil abbreviation of 'Sobersides,' ■ meaning my husband." Respondent admitted that sho,had been entertained in Cliristchurch by "Bertha." With regard to tho letter found by her husband, Mrs. Peat said that io was written while she was in a'terribly unhappy frame of mind.' < Sho admitted kissing "Snooks," but denied ever having committed adultery with him. In reference to tfhe - story about "Snooks" being in a "high position" in the Government service, and being a confidant of Cabinet Ministers, respondent said sho "must have been dreaming" when she wrote it in the letter. Witness gave evidence ns Jxi.ber. husband's attitude when he found »the,-letter,: and how, in the presence of her', parents, he had told her to leave his • houso. '.She. would not identify "Snooks." Cross-examined by Sir John Findlav, . witness reiterated that she had written ' tho letter in montal anguish. , Sir John Findlny: Did~you, as a wife ■ and mother, write, while ■ unhappy, as yoii eay you were, a letter that was nothing but indicative of lust Counsel contended that the letter ehow-