DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 130, 4 June 1919, Page 8

DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE

CLAIM AGAINST WAIRARAPA FARMER,

A divorce case ol some importance, involving as it does a claim for damages amounting to £4000, was called ,on at the Supreme Court this morn,iug, before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of ' twelve, of which Mr. Thomas Walter ■ Stace was foreman. - Albert Ernest Orlando Wellington .'. ISrooks, of Te Ore Ore, Masterton, • builder, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Cecilia Mary Myrtle Brooks, on the ground of adultery with Donald • M'Kenzie, Ilillend, Bideford, Masterton, -heepfarmer, who was. joined as corespondent. Sir John G. Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. L. L'E. Edwards, appeared for' -the pctitione;, and Mr. E. P. Hay for ; the respondent, while the co-respondent ■ was repi .seated by Mr. A. Gray, K.G., "■ with him Mr 0. Pragnell, of Masterton. I Sir John Findlay, in opening, said he felt sure that when the jury heard ' the facts of the cass they would find 'no difficulty in arriving at their decision, at least on the question of the ini6conduct. The- parties were married in 1901 in Taranaki, and - there had :. been four children of the union. Be- ' tween October 1915) and December, ,' 1918, it was. alleged that respondent .* had been guilty ' of misconduct with 'M'Kenzie at various places, including I th? hitter's farm. Continuing, counsel ; said that one of M'Kenzie's homes was at Te Ore Ore, Masterton, not far from , the home of the -petitioner, who was ; a highly respectable man—a building contractor. The work on which the petitioner was engaged — contracts : throughout the Wairarapa—necessitated _;"s rather frequent absence from home, \ but lie always strove to' be home at : the week-end ' The happenings between ; rt-spondent and co-respondent complained . of. alwaya took place in - petitioner's ab- ; rence,..', which, absence was not to the :-latter'- discredit. Petitioner was-a sober . and industrious man. "ef erring to the respondent, counsel said ! ,t in regard to the children, she claimed two more than were mentioned in the petition, but it was contended that two of the children were not the.children.of the petitioner. The Chief Justice: It seems that the J respondent claims six children, and i-want's'the paternity of two of them determined, in order, apparently, that the • children should not suffer for anything , she had' done. Sir John Findlay went on to say that the respondent had admitted adultery with the co-respondent, but, as his Honour would tell the jury, this admission ' was not held to be binding on the corespondent. M'Kenzie, continued counsel, had set out on a most heartless and deliberate system of wrecking the home of an industrious man for the gratification of his own evil passions. M'Ken- : _ie was a wealthy man, worth £30,000 or £40.000, and to the respondent he gave now a £10 note, now a £5 note— flinging money at her when she did not require it. He also told her of his motor-car, and took her out in it. It would be shown that Mrs. Brooks used lo flourish these notes about, and say: "This is what I got from Mac." "Thus," counsel added, "it was a deliberate attempt on the part of this man of wealth to seduce and debauch, another man's wife." , ,'. Cbunser went on to relate how Brooks' and his wife went tn Auckland when the former's brother- sold out a picture showMr. and .Mrs. M'Kenzie came to Auckland later Mrs. M'Kenzie and Mrs. Brooks were fr.ends, and counsel said Mrs M'Kenzie; he believed, was a most admirable woman, who died during the influpn'z. epidemic last year. While in Ai'cklind. it was alleged. M'Kenzie attemntod. to violate the respondent, but vptit away soon afterwards. Later, on '.''p return of both the parties to the Wairarana, misconduct, took place fre-ouc-nt'y between the respondent and the . rn-vesnondent. It was further pointed but that the respondent admitted that co-respondent was the father of two of her children, and that co-respondent him- j pelf had claimed paternity. Subsequently., on the suspicions of the petitioner being aroused, the resnondent denied any misconduct with M'Kenzie, but subsequently made a full.confession. The hearing of evidence was then taken. (Proceeding.)