DIVORCE OPPOSED

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 124, 11 June 1937, Page 12

DIVORCE OPPOSED

— Press Asaooiation.)

Wife's Attitude in Radley Case "FOND OF HER HUSBAND"

(By Telegraph

AUOKLAND, Last Night. That she had never at any ti#® been desirous of separation from her husband and still wished to re/£urn to him waa the final atatement ®iade by Dorothy Whaley Radley in her evidenoe in chief at the Supreme Court this morning in the case in which the Solicitor--General intervensdl to oppose the moving absolute of the decree nisi made in November lQtst year on the petition of Geoffrey S*juire Radley, fruit and produce merchant, formerly of Auckland, but now of Christchurch. Crs®s-examined by Mr. G. P. Piulay, for ihe "petitioner, the witness said that up to 1927 her married life as a whole vyas happy, but after that it was disturhed. She did not think she was responsible for the disturbanee, although she would not say she was always sweet and affectionate. The reason she went to Christchurch after the separation was to be near her children, and with the hope of winning her husband bqck. She denied that she went to Christchurch in order to carry out a certain idea and. destroy the force of the separation. She admitted that she had become bound by the agreement, but said that she had not wished to separate. She kept her two diaries to record events, not to enable her to defeat the separation order. . -Questioned about "Mrs. X" she said that when she began to suspect her husband was seeing more of Mrs. X' than was desirable she thougkt that if I Mrs. X was transferred elsewhere it ! wonld end the trouble. She did not go ] to the firm employing Mr. X and endeavour to get him dismissed from his ■ job. She did not remember having a physical combat with her husband on ' the boat returning from Engiand in 1920. She denied that she frequentljattacked him and disagreed with coun- • sel's contention that she was a profound exponent of women 's rights. She denied that she was an atheist. She admitted that none of her children wero baptised, bnt that was not because she ridiculed religion. Replying to Mr. Pinlay the witness said: "I am still fond of my husband and would go back to him now. ' ' Cross examined, Mrs. Radley said she had no recollection of tearing out her husband ;s tie at the gate, or of chewing the tie given to her husband by uis mother or of scoring across the calendar the children were sending to her mother-in-law. She did not think sho had been bad-tempered and aggressive throughont her marriage. She remembered rushing out with the garden shears and jabbing them into the tyres of the car to prevent her husband going somewhere. She denied she was eonstantly fighting with her husband. She did not know why her husband left her in 1927. She denied that she ever called her mother-in-law offensive names. Mr. Pinlay, appearing for Radley: Were you not at that time an atheist? Witness: No; I believed in God and I still do. None of her children were christened, ghe said, but that was not because she ihvariably ridiculed religion. Her mother-in-law was disturbed about the children being brought up without religion but that was not one of the causes of trouble between them. She had been too busy bringing up her family to devote attention to women 's rights and anti-religion. As suggested, her diary of March 16, 1931, . showed no reference to an assault by her husband as alleged in the pleadings. Witness was emphatic in sayiug. she still wanted her husband back. In spite of all that had happened there was no reason why they should not be happy. Mr. Pinlay; After 25 years of failure? Witness: Not 25 years of failure. Witness denied she had suggested a geparation to her husband while they were both in Engiand in 1930. It was her husband who suggested the separation. "When I wrote in the diary," witness sqid, "I had no thought of it being used in the court or of anyohe else seeing it." His Honour: Does that apply also to, the black book you made entries inf Witness: Yes. His Honour: But you kept the black book on the advice of Mr. Northcroft. Surely the idea was that it might be usedf « Witness: I had not that idea. His Hpnojir: What was the idea of keeping it? Witposs: Mr. Northcroft. advised me to keep it. His Honour: Surely you kuew why he advised you? Do you tell me tho entries in the book were made with no idea that they would have to be Tjsed as evidence? You say that? Witness: Yes, I do. Mrs, Radley 's cross examination was pot completed when the Court adjourned.