DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 288, 31 August 1921, Page 9

DIVORCE COURT

AN AUSTRIAN’S PETITION CLAIM FOR £2OOO DAMAGES A defended, action in divorce, involving some unusual features woe brought on yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Salmond and a jury of twelve. The petitioner, Mattio Natali Sarcich, asked for a dissolution of his marriage with Ijilcon Sarcich, .on the ground that she had been guilty of adultery with one George Vance Shannon, who was joined aa correspondent. Petitioner also claimed £2OOO damages as against co-respond-ent Messrs. P. S.„K. Macaseey and E. P. Bunmy appeared for petitioner, while respondent was represented by Mr. T. B. Slipper. Mr. J. J. Smith was foreman of the:jury In outlining the case for the petitioner, Mr. Macassey said that his client w QS born in Austria. He came to New Zealand twenty-one years ago, and' was naturalised in 1905 as a British subject. Mrs Sarcich was born in Australia, and came to New Zealand ®? m ® thirteen years ago. The .co-respondent, was a son of a well-known Feilding family. The parties w;ere married at Pahautanui in February, 1908, and lived at Paremata 1 and Plimmerton. Acts of adultery on various dates between May 1, 1919, and April, 1920, wore alleged. The respondent and co-respondent denied all allegations of impropriety. For the first five years of their marriage .Mr. and Mrs. Sarcich lived together very happily. Mre. Sarcich was. a hardworking woman and'a good wife. The Co-Respondent’s Entry. In 1913, Shannon went to reside in the district. He wag a neighbour of the Sarcichs, living in a shack situated some few hundred yards from their home. Evidence would bo called, stated counsel, that Shannon gradually wormed his way into Mi’s. Sarcich*s affections, though the petitioner simply regarded him in the light of a loyal friend. It was about the end of 1918 that petitioner first became suspicious of his wife’s conduct. Later his suspicions were confirmed. Shannon went into camp, and Mrs. Sarcich went into a hospital. Petitioner went to visit her, only to find Shannon sitting on her bed. Some time afterwards Sarcich had occasion /to. be absent ffom his home for a short period, and on returning he ascertained. that Shannon had stayed all night at his house. Ho questioned Mrs. Saycich abofit the matter, and her explanation was that she had allowed Shannon to stay in the house, as it was a cold wet night, and" his whare was too cold and uncomfortable to sleep in. On another occasion Sarcich was absent in Kaikoura for twelve days on account of a family bereavement, and on his return he ascertained that Shannon had been living in the house all that time, day and night. HVhen he taxed his wife with tho matter’ she merely burst into tears. Shannon continued to visit tho house, and was frequently in a drunken condition. ’ Sarcich often thrashed him, and sent him away, but he" invariably returned. Regarding one of the occasions on which it was alleged that misconduct took place, counsel said that petitioner missed his wife in the middle of the night—they slept in separate rooms—apd on making a search observed her coming back from -Shannon's whare.

Further Allegations. Sarcich commenced legal proceedings against. Shannon, seeking to him from trespassing on his premises ana molesting his family.' His wife refused, however, to giye evidence'on his behalf, and Sarcich agficed to abandon the action on Shannon giving an undertaking to keep away. ,„Later, however, Shannon again couunenced-to'visit Sarcich s home. In April. 1920. respondent left home, and petitioner discovered that she was living in a house in Vivian Street, Wellington. In the meantime petitioner had sent the children to church orphanages. "Petitioner ajxiut this tinie offered to take her back, saying that for the sake of the children he was will-' ing/to “forgiv and forget.” Mrs. Sarcich did not.to turn >' however, and later 'in the same -year petitioner found that, respondent-and co-respondent wcro living together on the latter’s farm at Mosst<swn, near Wanganui. The youngest child, a baby of two years, was wit H respondent. In concluding, counsel said that petitioner had through. wiftes misconduct lost his .home, his carrj’ing business had been greatly interfered with, and he was forcbd to pay about £4 a’ week towards ( the maintenance of his children away from home. In short, he was a broken man. v

Petitioner’s Nationality. The petitioner gave evidence along the lines indicated by counsel? following which he was submitted to a lengthy cross-examination. ’ Mr. Slipper: I suggest,that the trouble yofi met with at Plimmerton was on account of your Austrian birth ?

Petitioner: NO. I suggest that your feelings were very strong- about the war, and that through talking about the war you made yourself unpopular, and your business fell off —"No, sir?” . Your wife’s concern was not about the business, but your conduct, as her husband, in making an/exhibition of yourself ?—“No.” , , • Mr. Justice Salmond: That is not the proper way to examine a witness. Further questioned, witness-said: I told them that I have no feeling towards any nation whatever, but I reel towards the poor, suffering people. That is still my feeling. Counsel: Are you not a man with a violent temper? . Petitioner: I am a man ot a quicK, but not bad temper. Counsel: Are you not a man* of very emotional and very dramatic temperament ? • _ , Mr. Justice Salmond: I cannot understand the question, and I don't suppose the witness does. . ... . Counsel You suggest that one child is co-respondent's ? . Petitioner: Sure, it is his. It is the dead ring of him. You should have brought it into court, and seen his face. I know my own children. Further cross-examined, the witness said that respondent was a good wife and a good mother till .Shannon came on the scene. > Witnesses for Petitioner, William Randall, carrier, of Plimmerton, said tjiat Shannon was everlastingly at the Sarcich’s. 'Shannon used to Watch Sarcich go> away to town, and .then go to petitioner’s house. Witness said he had seen respondent and co-respondent together in Sarcich’s ‘house, while petitioner was away. Witness recalled having on one occasion observed Shannon chasing Mrs. Sarcich (who'had a baby in her unns), and shouting: "That is my kid you have got in your arms.” Helen Barber, a married woman, formerly residing at Plimmerton, said she was a friend of all parties. Shannon was addicted to liquor, and frequently visited Sarcich’s house. Mrs. Sarcich was good to 'her children and good to her husband, and had been an ideal mother until Shannon camel into their lives. Sarcich was a good_ husband and a good father. Witness said that Shannon, in conversation wifli ' her, had refleeted on Mrs. Sarcich’s character, and had said that he would find her in the guttei some day. Witness had always regarded Mrs. Sarcich as a good woman. Archibald M'Mahon, builder, of Johnsonville, gave evidence to much tho same effect. Michael Cox, a superannuated police constable, formerly stationed at Johnsonville, said he had been frequently called

to Sarcich’s house at the instance of petitioner, who made complaints about Shannon’s conduct. ' Sarcich was a steady, sober, hard-working man. Witness also gave Mrs. Sarcich a good character. V Matthew Solomon, a resident of Plimmerton, also gave evidence,'.following which the’ Court adjourned, till this morning.