A DIVORCE REFUSED

Hokitika Guardian, 16 February 1926, Page 1

A DIVORCE REFUSED

nv TjiiiiiGßArn — press assn., oopvbtoiit AUCKLAND. Fcl>. 15. One of tlie most remarkable marital eases heard in Auckland for a considerable time, to quote the words of counsel, was tried before Mr Justice Stringer and a jury of 12 in the Supreme Court to-day. Eric Harold Clouston, electrical engineer, petitioned for a divorce from Hilda Clouston (nee Moody), on the ground of misconduct, and be cited Robert Ivnight, a waterside workers, as co-respondent. Counsel for the petitioner said the marriage took place in April, 1018, and as the respondent, did not want her family to know, it was kept- a secret, she still being known by her maiden name for two years. Tlie petitioner was engaged as an electrical engineer on tlie liner Niagara, and he spent only a couple of days of each month, in Auckland. In spite of many requests by the petitioner that he should he allowed to make her a home, the respondent refused to agree. Finally, in despair, the husband fold bis wife’s father of the marriage. Nevertheless the parties continued to live apart. All this time the petitioner was paying Ins wife 80s a week-. She was also earning wages as a waitress in tearooms and in hotels. As she persisted in a separate life, he proposed a deed of separation, but she refused to consent. About this time, the petitioner liegan to have a suspicion as to his wife s behaviour, and consequently he had her watched. The upshot was that, on September 29th Inst, he and a private detective saw her and co-respondent in the Point Erin Park at night. Counsel for the respondent said that the petitioner never attempted to provide his wife with a home. It was at Che request of the petitioner himself, added to her own suggestion, that the marriage was kept a secret.. Attei a while Mrs Clouston suggested that her husband’s pnretns should tie _ informed, and this was done. Ever since flic marriage, his client had been obliged to support herself, in consequence of Clouston failing to provide fot hei. TTis statement that be gave hei 30s a. week was untrue. During his period of employment on the Niagara, his contributions averaged only about Is del * Both the resopndent and the co-res-pondent emphatically denied nnsconClouston swore she had from the first, offered to live with her husband anywhere, ff only he would preride a. home. From the day of the wedding, he had kept both her wecldimr ring and the certificate oi marriage. Anv moiicv that ho had given he,”had been in driblets of a few shilling Since September 29th. they had been together almost every ">gh.t, intimate relations continued up to January 30th. Since the service of the citation. lie had frequently taken her to entertainments. . , PI is Honour asked the jury f simple decision, whether or not misconduct occurred on September 29. . Within seven minutes the .U"> turned to Court with a verdict that petition was dismissed, "fth costs to lKith the respondent and the co-respondent.