PEAT DIVORCE CASE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 48, 20 November 1920, Page 10

PEAT DIVORCE CASE

PETITIONER GAINS VERDICT JURY STRIKES OUT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES After a retirement of threo houra and n. quartor, the jury in tho Peat divorco case, yesterday returned a verdict for the petitioner.! His Honour Sir. Jußtice Edwards was on tho Bench. The ease, tho hearing of which extended over jive days, was one in which Hnrcourt Louis Eugene Peat, of Feilding, ~ j or dissolution of his marriage witli Dorothy . Edith Peat, on tn« ground of adultery, and also claimed JJIOOO damages ausiinst William Beauchamp-Platta Sir John. Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. W A Perry, appoared for tho petitioner, Mr. A. Ongley and Mr. A. B. Siovwrighfc for tho respondent, while Mr. C. P. Skerrott, K.C., with him' Mr. D. M. i'indlay, appeared for tho co-respondent. '£ho questions put to the jury were: (1) Did the co-respondent commit adultery with tho respondent? (2) Did the respondent commit adultery -with the co-respondent? (3) What damages .aro to bo given if tlio first two questions are answered in tho affirmative ? On tho first twA questions, tho jury'» answer was "Yc3" ( in ertuTl case, but on the damages query, tlie answer was "Nil." No arrangement lias yet been arrived at as to costs and custody of the child. Yesterday morning. Sir John Findlay continued his cross-examination of the witness who said that Miss Saxton had left his omploy in 1911, after four years' service. Sho was a friend of the family. Ho had occasionally written to . Miss Saxton.' When I r-aw Mrs. Pc-at in Wellington, six years after I first met her, I did not remember her," said the co-re-spondent. He wa9 certain it was 1918 when ho met Mrs. Pefft. in Wellington. Ho had previous Ho the case forgotten that he had taken Mrs. Peat to the boat

in a taxi. ... Ho had also forgotten tlint Barlow and Mrs. Peat had called at hi* o~cc iwiec. Co-respondent denied having taken Mrs. Peat- imto his, room and having kissed her. Ho did re'momber taking the co-resoondont to Mrs. Alderson's houso in Goldie's Brae. . Allegations Denied. " In further cross-examination, Sir John Findlay adduced that co-respon-dent did not write to Itubino, hut aeked Mrs. Rubino and Mrs. Peat to dinner for a certain reason. .Tha.reason that he had not reserved rooms at Warner's Hotel was on account of his wife's uu-_ ""■•'.Tin Health • "H fun, "Hr custom to reserve rooms," added Beauohamp-Platis. ■. . . ' The meeting with Mrs. Peat was entirely a coincidence. After the pictures lie parted with Mrs. Peat at the door of thi hotel.' "I neither knew the number of itrs. Peat's room nor its location," he added. Ho did not know, that Mrs; Peat had stayed longer in Christchurch ,to meet him. He had no recollection of meeting; her in August, 1919. . Witness explained the handbag incident by stating that he had sent Miss Peerless with respondent to the taxi-driver's house to recover the. handbags Anv statement that lie paid her hotel bill was absolutely untrue. ' Mrs. Peat did not tell him t|int her aunt, lmd rebuked her for" accepting too many favours from him. • There was nothing singular in his .having taken Barlow and; the respondent to tea. vln July, 1920, witness went to Sydney with. Mrs. Piatts. With reference to the girls' names, witness denied that'respondent iiad ever called him by such appellations. He had not seen Mrs. Peat since the commencement of the proceedings. To Mr. Skerrctt: Mr. Cullen was still a friend of co-respondent and his wife. It was untrue that he had. met Mrs. Peat , in 1917, and he had never taken her for a joy ride to'Trentham. His wife knew of tlie occasion when 1m took Mrs. Peat to tho boat. .... On overy occasion previously witness lmd 6tayed at. \>orner's Hotel. Ho'reiterated he had not seen Mrs. Peat since service of the citation. "Mrs. Peat's demeanour to me. has ibocn entirely correct on every occasion, added Beauchamp-Platts. ■ ■ The wife of the cn-rcspondent, Elizabeth M. Beauchamp-Platts, said she was, married 29 years ago while, her husband was farming in tho Manawatu. Since 11 months afterwards witness hed continuously resided ,ln Wellington. Her lifs with her husband had been n, very nappy r.ne. Witness remembered meeting Mvfl. Peat in 1912 at Hunterville, the respondent then being a single girl. Witness had not known her before. She corroborated previous evidence as to the method of introduction to Mrs. Peat, and ns to having met Mrs; Peat again in 1918. Witness had been uttraeted by respondent's, personality. . . . Witness said that, when her husband went for trips she usually went with him, but on the occasion referred to she. did not ■go n« the weather was very rough. . ... IJwa previously asked my husband to. lm it? Mrs. Peat to dine with us, thmlang wo both would be in Christchurch, said Mrs. ■Beauchamp-Platts. Witness said she knew that .tar husband had, dnyentfio' respondent to her aunts after- tho. return from Christchurch'. She renieniIbcred Mrs. Peat having addressed a let- ,t ter to Beauchainp-Platts, which wo'

6 a'o n si? John. 'Findlny: Witness said she supposed. Mrs. Peat confidently expected to have the taxi ficnt to her after her demand. The,Fifiat Addresses. In closing the case for the respondent, Sir Sievwright emphasised the. frankness.with which Mrs; Peat's evidence was; given. He claimed that Mrs. Peat was meroly masquerading ns a woman pf levity. _. , The jury could, not take, into consideration the ■ affairs with "Snooks" and "Bertha" Tho fact that the co-respondent had stayed under tho, snme roof'as the respondent did not prove adultery. If it (IW, not a'woman in New Zealand would be safe from accusation. There wns nothing to prove that the letters alleged to hav? been written by Ueauchiunp-Plaths had been sent to Mrs. Peat. On tine death of Mrs. Hnbmo tho respondent lost interest in the. letters. \Vas there a mystery that Kubino could the co-respondent, Mr. Skerrett, referred to Bea-uchnmp-Platts's honourable career and the social ruin and Jinan., rial lass a verdict of; guilty would incur. He referred to the singular fact that 110 charge was referred to against the man. "Snooks." He pointed out that the respondent's life had been unhappy, and "religious feeling and acuto parsimony. were no substitute for love."; _ . Sir .Toftn Findlny contended that the incriminating letter was written by Platts. The letter referred to "one night, not ■ to several nights. He considered that the letter was an admission of guilt. Mrs. Peat wished to infer that the letter belonged to Mrs. Kubino, but this wa9 an abominable accusation. Tb* Respondent admitted that she did not mind "Sobersides," her husband, getting a divorce. After the verdict had been . delivered His Honour mado a decree nisi on tho usual terms.