Sensational Evidence.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 September 1922, Page 4

Sensational Evidence.

GIVEN IN DIVORCE CASE.

WELLINGTON, September 1G

Evidence of n sensational nature was given in the undefended action for divorce heard yesterday in the Supreme Court before His Honour -Air Justice Reed, of Olive Alicia I.ee against John James Joseph Gee. Air H. F. O’Leary appeared for the petitioner and Mr p. B. Putnam for the respondent although intimating that the suit would not he opposed. The facts, as elicited from the petitioner, were rather unusual. The parties were married in 1915, the respondent shortly afterwards going away to the front. When he returned to lus wife in 1918, respondent began acting towards her in a very cruel manner, actually attacking her on one occasion with a razor. Prosecuted on the charge of assault with intent to infkct grievous bodily harm, respondent was rentcnccd to five years’ imprisonment in Februarv, 1919.. and he had been in gaol ever since. The interesting point raised by petitioner’s counsel was that, although in gaol, the respondent was technically and statutorily of desertion, and counsel quoted authority on the point. There were two children of the marriage, said the petitioner, and after respondent’s return from the war. his treatment of her was such that It was quite impossible for her to live with him. When she had threatened to leave him. respondent had struck her on several occasions, and she finally left him on April 20th., 1919. taking shelter in her mother’s house. On the following night she went to the People’s Palace, and respondent again attacked her because she would not consent to return to him hut wished for time to think the matter over. With'a f riend of hers, a Mrs Johnson, she took a Kilbirnie ear, Gee taking the same tram and the trio alighted at the corner of Constable Street. Calling ber aside, Gee again asked her to return home with him. He then unwrapped a towel he was carrying, took therefrom a razor, and the next thing she knew she luid received a bad cut in the throat. She struggled with him on the sidewalk, and received further injuries to her face and throat that necessitated medical attention.

•His Honour: It is an extraordinary thing that the jury did not convict the man of attempted murder. Air O’Geary replied that that was so, and that probably a mistaken .sympathy for the respondent was responsible for the jury’s leniency. Tire petitioner, finishing her story, t‘ Id of the respondent’s subsequent arrest and imprisonment. His Honour: Then your reasons for leaving your husband were that you were cruelly treated? Petitioner replied in the affirmative. Edith Alary Carmichael, an old neighbour of the Gees when they resided at lirooblyn, described her knowledge of the serious unhappiness that existed between the parties. On one occasion, sire stated, respondent had caught the | etitiom r bv the threat and had made certain infamous charges against her. He was constantly threatening his wife, and witness knew that the petitioner certainly was afraid of him and his violence.

T.ie evidence as to the respondent’s final attack on bis wife with the razor was corroborated by Annie Johnson, who was with her on that ccon.sion. His Honour allowed the usual decree nisi, with permission to the parties to arrange through their counsel that respondent might see his children occasionally. The actual desertion, constructive according to law, His Honour explained, was when respondent’s cruel conduct compelled his wife to leave him and that desertion continued to run on in spite of the fact that respondent was in gaol, and therefore was not able to live with her if she had been so disposed.