IN DIVORCE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 47, 19 November 1920, Page 8

IN DIVORCE

PEAT CASE CONTINUED CO-RESPONDENT GIVES EVIDENCE Yesterday was the fourth day of hearing of the Peat divorce suit, which is occupying illie. attention in the Supreme Court of His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve. The case" is one in. which Harcourt Eugene Louis Peat is seeking dissolution of his marriage with Dorothy Edith Peat, on the ground of adultery, naming William R. Beauchamp-Platts as the co-respondent/. The sum of JiIOOO is claimed as damages. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. W. Perry, appear for the petitioner, Mr. A. B. Sievwright (for Mr. A. Ongley) for the respondent, and Mr. C. P. Skcrrett, K.C.. with him Mr. D. M. Findlay, for the co-respondent. The respondent! was further cross-ex-amined yesterday morning by Sir John Findlay. Sho admitted that her husband's health had not been good when she married him, but said she had done her best for him. Witness maintained that she was unhappy, and had ceased to caro for her husband. There was no indication ftiat her married life would ever have been a happy one. She was not certain of the number of letters sho had received from. Beauchamp-Platts. She admitted having received copies of the "Triad" from him which she had not paid for, and also having • written thanking him for i|hem. Sho maintained, that the letter of invithtion to dinner at Warncr'B Hotel waß from Mr. and Mrs. Beauchamp-Platts, although ill was in tho handwriting of the co-respondent. .... In reference to the incident in

which Rubino, was alleged to havo made overtures to respondent, Mrs. Peat said that his wife was about the house at the time, but was not in the room. "I have never regarded Rubino as a man," added the respondent!. "Ho is a thing." "If that is so," said counsel for the petitioner, "why did you go to his house as his guest?' Respondent: I was hot his guest. ... I went there for his wife's sake only. Respondent also 6aid thatl Mrs. Rubino had known she was going to Warner's Hotel. They had dinner with tho corespondent and' went pictures afterwards, later returning to ijie hotel after seeing Mrs. Rubino to-her car. The first timo that witness told BeauchampPlatts she was going back to' Wellington on the Saturday was at dinner. Corespondent took her to the station in n taxi, and saw to her luggage on hoard tlis steamer. She denied that he had brought refreshment to her cabin, "On my return, I stayed three or four days in Wellington," added tho respondent. "I did' not see Beauchamp-Platts, and ho certainly did not attempt to kiss me." Sir John Findlay: Havo you read the documents referred to? Wiltoess: I have never read them.. I did not lead Miss Lanauze to believe they were mine'. Sho knew Mrs. Rubino as well as I did, and I did not think that tho affair of the documents mattered.

Further cross-examined, witness admitted that the girl named Barlow had stayed at tho Empire Hotel, when she was there. Sir John Findlay: Did ypu know that Barlow went to Sydney with a man to whom she was not married 1 Witness: Yes. . . . Her mother knew also. i ' \ Counsel: Do you think that she was a fit companion for a wife and a mother? Respondent did not answer. C Ownership of Letters, .Sir John Findlay at this stage adduced a statement thai: tho affaiir with tho man whose sobriquet was "Bertha" was a practical joke. Referring further to the incriminating documents which hnd been found by Rubino, witness said that, tho deceased lady had told her husband the letters were witness's property. "I never cared for Rubino," added the witness. "I took tho ownership of the letters for the eako of his wife." With reference to shoes and blouses alleged ico be given to her by Beauchamp-Plntts, respondent denied ever having received such tilings from him: neither hnd he given hex money, and she had' never paid into her bank book any money from him She had said nothing to lwt husband about receiving new clothes in an art union. Oir counsel stating iihat Mrs. Bray, respondent's nunt, had protested against her continual ' meetings with Beauchamp-Platte, respondent said that only on one occasion, when she had rung him up for a v>xi, did her aunt protest. She had never gone/to Trenthnm for a motor jaunt with the co-respondent. . . . With regard to "Snooks," respondent axid she had gone for a motor tnp with him. but 'there were four.ovher people in ■ the back seat with her. Prior to tho commencement of the case respondent knew .nothing of the contents of tho documents referred to.

Ada Audrey,"mother of the respondent, gave evidence as to Peat having complained of his wife's weaving her beat hat to go out in the evening. That was' the first occasion she had noticed any estrangement Witness said Hint she had seen Peat after her daughter left his. house, and he had snid, "If she confesses I will forgive her." Witness added: "I told him that my girl had nothing to confess, and would never- go hack to him." The Co-respondent's ease. In hia address to the jury on holialf of the co-respondent, Mr. Skerrett said the jury had only to consider the charge =ngainst Beauchnmp-Plntts of having committed adultery with respondent nt Warner's Hotel, Christchurc.il, in May, 1918. Everything else was entirely irrelevant. The letters sent by Mrs." Peat to Miss Lanauze were not evidence against the co-respondont. All that was left was of the flimsiest and most unsatisfactory character, and was based only on tho evidence of handwriting experts.

Further evidence of handwriting experts was then taken. Guy Bardie Scnoletleld. journalist, who had done research 'work in London, and had assisted Scotland Yard in deciphering writings, said ho had made a carefiiT examination of the handwriting in the anonj'nious and the admitted documents of the case, and in his opinion tKey were not written by ono and tho same man. He considered t.hnt it was practically impossible ior a man to disguise his handwriting In a lengthy document such as tho anonymous letter, and. not betray his style. Q\ui>tioned by Sir John Findlay, witness said he was positivo that the writing in the anonymous letter was not feigned, but was naturally written without hesitancy. Evidenco in support of this was given by Edward William Lindfny and Henry Dews Clementson. both bank officers, whn said they could find no similarity In the writing.

Wiljiam Diehard Beauchamp-Plattß, tho co-respondent, said lie had originnlly Intended to enter tho Church. Howovor. after service in a hank in London he came to New Zealand, and after a short oxiwriciico of farming entered tho Treasury Department 27 yean ago. He was a public accountant, had been married 2!) years, and had no children. Ho gave evidence as to birring mot the respondent in Himlcrvillc in 1012. when tho latter introduced herself to him, saying that she had been told to make herself 'known lo him by the Miss Eaxton previously referred to. His wife was with him n't the time. The acquaintance with Mrs. I'eat. was renewed later, and witness had in no way communicated with tho respondent during tho lutcrvoning years. "'When I next oaw tie respondent," added tiio witness, "I did not know she was ma-rrfed, and did not know her married name. On that occasion I (rave ncr my wife's address wliilo she was in the public nlKccln the presence or my olork. She did not then mention the trip to Christchurch."

Tho Cnristchurch Episode. ' Witness said thai after respondent had left the office ho fang up bis vnfo and told her that Mrs. I'cat would call and see her, which he believed .she had done. Ke-arding tho trip to Chrlstohurclf. he said tiiaf Ills wife had originally intended to accompany him to Ohnstclinreh. bui owing to ill-health lmd been compelled to remain at home. "On Mrs. Piatt's suggestion r wrote a formal note of invitation lo Mrs. l'eat raking her to dinner at WariiorV;. said the .co-respon-dent "before I knew that Mrs. Flam would not accompany me .on the trip." On nrrivnl at Warner's, witness said he em-aged his room, and after fixing up his luggage came neross Mrs. feat m the vcstilmU. Ho expressed 6urpnse at seeing her, and fbo naked him whore Mrs. Platte was. Witoicee explained that 11)1-1

health had prevented his wife from going down. Witness did not see respondent again unlTl dinner time, when Mrs. Pont and Mrs. Knbino joined him at the tabk. They went to the pictures thai: night and on arrival back at the hotyt she went to her room, and he went to the smoke-room. He. did not see her again that night. Witness said he took her to the station in his taxi on tlio way homo to Wellington, and after he had seen her on the steamer did not tea her again during her visit to 'Wellington, "When I got homo," added the witnese, "I told mv wifo of tho occurrences at Christchiirch. Tho next time I heard fiom Mrs. Peat was about a year afterwards, when she wrote asking mn fo meet her nt the station with a taxi «n bor arrival in Wellington. I did this, and told my wife of tho matter. A similar letter arrived sonic time afterwards, but on this occasion, after telling my wife, I (lid not go down." He said that, ho had received a letter from Mrs. l'cat asking him to send her the "Trind" to a different address. Ho afterwards ascertained that Mrs. Poat's name was on the complimentary list, and had evidently boon placed thero by a Miss. Peerless, who was a friend of the respondent's, and had fonnorly been employed in his office, "I never knew I was referred io as 'Bertha'," said tho co-respondent, "but I absolutely dony any familiarity or misconduct, with Mrs. Peat," The case will be continued this moraing, and will probably end' to-diyr.