FAMILY TROUBLE

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 34, 10 February 1933, Page 9

FAMILY TROUBLE

DIVORCE PETITIONS

ALLEGATIONS DENIED

CASE FOE DEFENCE

Defending the petitions for divorce against each of them in the Supremo Court before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury, Alice Maud Johnson and William Gunter, a senior Government messenger and custodian of the Customs building, denied they were guilty of adultery. As reported yesterday, there are two cases. In'the first Margaret Jean Gunter petitions for a divorce from WillianiGunter, who is cited as the co-respondent in tho petition of Sidney Alexander Johnson, assistant Government meter inspector, against Mrs. Johnson. Evidence for the petitioners was called yesterday and a start was made with the defence in the afternoon. Witnesses called by the petitioners were Hector Lionel Wood, private inquiry .agent, Ivan William Bentley, Governnifciit messenger, William Edward Colley,. a carrier, Mrs. Beatrice Edwurds, of the City Private Detective Agency, and Sidney George Johnson, son of Sidney Alexander Johnson. Mr. W. Perry appeared for the two petitioners, and Mr. P. Levi, with Mr. J. B. Yaldwyn, for Mrs. Johnson and Gunter. OUTLINE OF DEFENCE. Mr. Levi, in outlining the defence, said it. was not denied that Gunter and Mrs. Johnson were '•' somewhat attached to one another and that what had been termed "familiar acts" had taken place between, them. It was absolutely denied, however, that there had been any impropriety or conduct justifying Gunter and Mrs. Johnson being found guilty of adultery. The onus of proof lay on the other side, and the petitioners' had to show such facts and circumstances that would lead the jury to :believe there was no escape from the conclusion that adultery had been committed. Alice Maud Johnson, respondent' in the second case, said she entered into a deed of separation with her husband because he was "cruel in mind" to her. Her husband used to sit and not say a word and did notshow her proper respect. She had stood his conduct for fourteen years, and could not stand it any longer. The separation was not her fault. After she left her husband she went to live at .211, Vivian street, a respectable boarding-house, kept by Mr. and Mrs. Leonard, friends she had known for twenty years. It was true Gunter subsequently came there, after he had separated from his wife, but. they had not lived together nor had there been, any .improper conduct between them. She denied a statement by one of the inquiry agents that-she ty-as in Gunter's room one night. / WIPE CROkS-EXAMINEb. Mr. Perry questioned Mrs... Johnson about maintenance proceedings taken in the Magistrate's Court, and, in doing so, referred to a copy of tho Magistrate's notes of the evidence. Mrs. Johnson, denied having said then that her husband ordered Gunter out of the house and that was the reason she left him. Mr. Perry: I suggest that you and Gunter- arranged with Mr. arid Mrs. Leonard that Gunter should come and stay at the boarding-house.—No, I did not. ■ , ■ You are fond/of Mr. Gunter,-aren't you?—l like him. Very much? —I'wouldn't say. very much.. . . -. . Does he like you?—l think he does. Quite a, lot?—I wouldn't say quite a lot. ' - I see,' just a little!' The Chief Justice: Did you expect Gunter to call at 211, Vivian street?— No, I didn't expect him. Well, why did you tell him where you ;were going? • .'••" The witness did not reply. ' NO KISSING. Replying to further questions by Mr. Perry, Mrs. Johnson denied that she made, a practice; of visiting Gunter in his rov.a at the Customs building, 3?urther, she denied that Gunter had ever kissed her or that she had kissed him. She admitted having quarrelled' with Her husband about Gunter and that the quarrel was followed by the letter to Gunter that tad been produced,.but refuted an allegation that she told her husband that she loved Gunter' and could liot live without him. :■-. , , The Chief Justice asked Mrs. Johnson whether she thought it 'was wise that Gunter should go to the same place to live after she had left her husband. Witness said she did not think.there was anything wrong in it. . Charles Henry Duncan, an officer in the Lands and Survey Department, said he lived next'door to-the Johnsons at Miramar. He remembered that about two years ago Mrs. Johnson asked him to speak to her husband about the manner he adopted toward her. When he did so Johnson said he had not been in good health, and he knew he* was a hard man to live with. Replying to Mr. Perry, witness said he knew Johnson had-been in a sanatorium.. Since Gunter'went to live in Vivian street both Gunter and Mrs. Johnson had visited his house. Mrs. Johanna '.Leonard said that Gunter and' Mrs. Johnson occupied separate rooms in her boarding-house, Gunter being in a room with witness's son. She had not seen any impropriety between Mrs. Johnson and Gunterl ■■■: Replying, to his Honour witness said that before Gunter came to live with them he used, to have- tea at the house on Sunday night at Mr. Leonard's invitation. Gunter was not in the habit of coming during the week. . His Honour pointed out that Mrs. Johnson had said that Gunter called about twice a week. \ Othep evidence was given by Frederick Eobert Leonard, husband of the previous witness, and Matthew Gilbert Neal, Qa-w clerk. "PLENTY OF ROWS." • William Gunter said that the.immediate cause of his leaving his wife was "plenty of rows." He denied that when ho went to 211, Vivian street to live, Mrs. Johnson, in Ms counsel's words, was leaning out of a window "smiling a welcome to him." At first he slept in a bach at the back of the house, but he caught a bad. cold, and moved into the house, sharing a room with Mr. Leonard's son. (Proceeding.)