WIFE LEAVES HUSBAND

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 280, 20 August 1921, Page 12

WIFE LEAVES HUSBAND

TO WORK ON FARM PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE The story of a wife who left her husband, and, taking two of three children, went t» work at a farm owned by -aman whose wife had left him, was related in the Divorce Court yesterday, when William Bootkby (Mr. Jackaon) asked fur dissolution of his marriage with Annie Mercy Eliza Boothby (Mr, O’Regan). The owner of the farm, Philip Neil Cameron (Mr. Perry) was named as co-respondent. The petitioner, making the claim on the ground of adultery, asked for X 750 damages. The case sat info the evening, and aS Mr. Justice Reed will leave for Napier to-day, further hearing was adjourned until next month. His Honour and a jury of twelve heard yesterday’s proceedings. Giving evidence, tho petitioner eaid that the parties were married in Christchurch in 1909, and later went to tha ITutt, where petitioner received employment from th© Hutt County Council, Cameron had leased some sections near* Knights Road, where tho parties were living, and had built a cowshed on ona of them, having cleared the land in preparation for dairying operations. Respondent agreed to assist the co-respond-ent with tho milking, r.nd was continually on his land. He? behaviour waa distasteful to. the petitioner, who complained several times o: her associatioa with Cameron. To ary remonstrances she had answered that "there was nothing wrong.” "One day," said .the petitioner, "I camo homo for my dinner about noon 1 saw a big dinner laid on the kitchen table, and a note. The note was to th* effect that my wife was 'tired of the life at th© Hutt,’ and was going to th® country 'to be among t.ie cows.’" Respondent took with her an adopted son and the younger of two children, witness added. Just before respoadent left, tha co-respondent had purchased a farm at Feilding, having given up cairy farmins at the Hutt. “She jvent to live with th© co-respondent on his farm," said th® petitioner, “and has continued to live with him. She left ino just after lasi Christmas.” Continuing his evidence, ' petitioner said that respondent had answered a letter from him, saying that she would not return, as she had taken up a two-years’ contract share-milking. She stoutly affirmed that there was nothing between her and the co-respondent. A further letter from her called the petitioner "evil-niinded” and “jealous.” Boothby alleged that he had proof of his wife’s attitude towards Hi© co-respondent through her having written a letter to Cameron on the first page of a new. writing-block. The impression remained on the blotting-paper. Bind petitioner could see, on placing the blotting-paper before a minor, th© words. They were: "Aly darling pet. ... I can’t oom© out to ee© you to-night. I’m sorry/ .. . I’m very tired to-day; I’ve had a hard day's washing. ... Your own little pet." Petitioner was subjected to a rigid cross-examination by both Mr. O’Regan and Mr. Perry. Most of th© cross-exam-ination related to alleged wrongful acts of the respondent before marriage. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent gave lengthy evidence dur. ing tho afternoon. :She denied impropriety with the co-respondent. She said she had gone to th© country of her own free will, as she liked milking, and wanted her boy to learn. Her husband, she said, had never forbidden her to go to Cameron's milking-shed at the Hutt. She denied that Cameron had slept in the cowshed, and that she had visited him there. Only once or twice had she even gone out alone with the co-respondent. Cameron had come to her house only when business demanded. There was never anything in the nature of a secret visit on the part of Cameron. Questioned as to Die writing-pad episode, respondent said that her husband' was not telling tho truth. The words "darling pet” were written in a letter to her husband while sho was on holiday. "The pad was not a new one," she said.. "I had it with me ivhile I was on holiday.” Witness said that she left petitioner because h© was guilty of unnatural conduct. Th© co-respondent, an elderly man, denied having committed any impropriety with Mrs.. Boothby. He had been several times io the Boothbys’ house for meals, and on occasions Mrs. Boothby had brought him a cup of tea to tho cowshed, with Boothby’s cognisance. He had never slept in the cowshed on any night. He denied that his wife hr.d left him on account of Mrs. Boothby. Cross-examination lasted until 6.30 p.m., after which the case was adjourned until September 19, at 10 a.m.