DIVORCE SOUGHT

Evening Star, Issue 19793, 17 February 1928, Page 7

DIVORCE SOUGHT

LADY INQUIRY AGENT'S EVIDENCE 1 ;

In the Supreme Court this morning, before His Honor Mr Justice Sim, Herbert Edmond Davidson sought a divorce from Ada Jane Davidson, on the ground of misconduct. The corespondent was Thomas Fliutoff. Mr E. A- Duncan appeared for the petitioner, and that no appearance had been filed on behalf of the respondent or the co-respondent. Petitioner had been living apart, from bis wife since June of last year. There were two children of the marriage. The petitioner had ground for suspecting that his wife had lived with the corespondent in Wellington. The two afterwards returned to Dunedin, though it was not expected they would have done so. it was thought they were going to leave the dominion. Petitioner stated in evidence that he w-s married in 1913. His wife and he lived in Dunedin. About June of last yea/ differences arose between them, e I they agreed to separate. In November he had reason to suspect his wife was going to Wellington with a man. He saw his wife go to the station, where she was joined by _ tbe man. Since then he had seen his wife, but he had not spoken to her.

Beatrice Edwards, a young woman, said she was employed as an inquiry agent’s assistant in Wellington. On the morning of November 6. she had instructions to watch the people coming off the Wahine at Wellington. She saw Mrs Davidson come off the boat with Flintoff. Witness, who gave a detailed description of what the parties were wearing, said they took a taxi. She engaged another and followed them. They went to an hotel. She was close enough to say that the man paid lor tL-) taxi.

Mr Duncan: “From inquiries made at the hotel did you find anything?” His Honor: “Inquiries made at the hotel will not be evidence. The statements made to this lady at the hotel i. T not be evidence against the respondent or the co-respondent.” Mr Duncan: “ She saw the hotel register.” His Honor: “If you want to prove anything you will have to call the person who made the entry in the register,' and who had conversation with these people. There is no ‘judgment bj" default ’ in divorce cases. You have to prove your case according to the rule! of evidence.” Witness further said she watched tha hotel for a considerable time on the Sunday and the Monday, and she saw tho two people go out and come in together. Peter Ireland, motor salesman, said he had frequently seen the co-respon-dent in the company of Mrs Davidson before November 5 On that date he was on the Dunedin station, and saw' them together. They went away sitting side by side in the carriage. On November 10 witness was on the station, and saw' Flintoff and Mrs Davidson on a train coming in. He afterwards saw Mrs Davidson on tho platform with another lady. To a house in Pine Hill road witness went to serve Flintoff with the citation, and Mrs Davidson anstvered the door. Flintoff signed the acknowledgment. Harry Walter Symons, law clerk, said he served a citation on Mrs Davidson. He was with a photographer when a photo was taken of Mrs Davidson just after her arrival from Wellington, Mr Duncan said a difficulty had cropped up. The person who was pro-, pridor of the hotel at the time had left the place, and was staying out of the town. The present proprietor said the 1927 register w'as missing. His Honor; “You are in difficulty in proving that they were in tho hotel together.” Mr Duncan asked if a confession by the respondent ivould suffice. His Honor said that would be evidence against her. but not against th© co-respondcnfc.

Mr Duncan said ho would endeavor to get a confession from both. His Honor said ho could see no objection to proving tho case in that way. If Mr Duncan produced confessions he would act upon them. The case could stand over till Monday.