IN DIVORCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 1942, 20 February 1919, Page 3

IN DIVORCE.

Do BIDDER v. De BIDDER,

At the Palmerston Supreme Court on Tuesday, before Mr Justice Chapman, the hearing was commenced in the defended divorce case of William Edward de Bidder (petitioner) v. Alice de Bidder (respondent), in which the petitioner sought a dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of adultery. Edmund Nielsen was named as co-respondent. The defence set up was a denial and on the further grounds of condonation and conduct inducing the adultery.

Mr Gilford Moore appeared for (he petitioner, and Mr .Rollings, of Master!on, for the respondent and co-respondent. The following jury was empannelled: —Alfred Andrews (foreman), Joseph A. Dell, Mi/.pah Richardson, Vincent Quigan, William A. Bycroft, George Maunder, Jack Proud, Christopher Robert, Jau.es Hunter, William Proctor, George Cotton, Edmund A. Bennett. THE PETITIONER'S STORY. Jn bis evidence the petitioner said he was a flax contractor in the Foxton district. He was married on June Ist, 1905, at Foxton. His - wife’s maiden name was Alice Nelson, and at the time of her marriage she was a domestic servant. Since then lie had lived with his wife at Foxton, and they had had four children. Petitioner’s average earnings for 1918 were £8 15s per week. The whole of that he spent on the maintenance of his wife.and family. Besides that, he had drawn £25 out of the Post Office. His work consisted of bleaching, or paddocking, the llax fibre. In September of last year his wife left Him and went away from Foxton. She left behind her a letter (which he put into court), in which she said that she would never come back to him. She was tired of being treated like a dog, and that be bad said jie would starve her out, and he had succeeded. Witness denied all the allegations contained in this letter. Continuing, witness said that his wife had gone away before. Sometimes sbe would go away to her mother’s for a week at a time. He had had occasion before to remonstrate with her about going out with other men. On the last occasion that she went away she had made no provision for her children, after she had left. He made inquiries and learnt that Nellie Crowes (a friend of Ids wife’s), Charles Nelson (his wife’s brother), and Edmund Neilsou had left Foxlon about the same time, and all met in Wellington. He traced them to Mastodon. When he got there he found (lint bis wife was at the Prince of Wales Hoi el. She was working there as a kitchenmaid mirier the name of Miss Nielsen. There he had a conversation with her, in the course of which she denied having Jived with Nielsen as his wife, but said that she was sorry for all Mie had done. She endeavoured to get him to take her back, but he re-

plied: “No, not this time.” He had

more than one conversation with Jier. Eventually .he arranged with her to go to a solicitor in Mast or ton and draw up a document stating (hat she did not intend to defend a mill for divorce, or make any claim for the custody of the children. Subsequently, however, respondent refused to sign the document, and the follon'ing morning witness returned to Eoxton. Witness- did not see Nielsen at the time. Nielsen had been staying for about a fortnight at the same hotel as witness wile, hut he went away to a job just before witness arrived on the scene. There was no truth in the statement set up by the defence that while at Master!on lie had condoned her misconduct. To°Mr 1 lollings: At the time he married his wife she had given birth (o his first child. Witness admitted that by marrying her he laid sealed her lips in the matter of her giving evidence a,gainst him. At the time he married her she was aged 15 years. He himself had reached the age of 21 years. When she married him he had nothing. Since then he had pro-

.-pored, and ho was now fairly well

oil in a .-mall way. Witness was \ omphalic that his wife was not a •contributing cause to his prosperity. As he prospered he had not tired of her, and had not frequently told her to “clear to out of it.” He dc- ' hied having broken his wife’s nose with Ids list. He had knocked her on the no-e accidentally while lie was beifding down. She had admitted that it was an accident to His solicitor. There had been quarrels between them, but he bird never ahused her. On the morning she left Eoxton for Masterton he had not threatened to “scatter her brains against the Avail, and disfigure her for life.” Edmund Nielsen, the co-re-spondent, was not practically deaf and dumb. It was a fact that it avus very hard for Nielsen to speak or to hear. He heard all right Avith the left ear. Re-examined by Mr Moore, Avituess said he denied in loto the whole of Ids wife’s allegations as disclosed j,n cross-examination. jßv the Jury 7 : His wife could write, hut not read. THE LANDLADY’S STORY. Mrs Isabella Donaldson, of Chap- * pie Street, Masterton, recalled how, on October 3rd last, a young couple, calling themselves Mr and Airs Nelson engaged a room at her house. The same day the co-respondent and respondent, who represented themselves as “Air and Airs Nielsen ” called at the house and engaged a single room, Avhich they jointly occupied for a week. Airs de Kidder called the co-respondent “Edmund.” Xelson was a returned soldier. Wit- * did nut know there was any-

thing wrong. She thought they were all bona tide.

To Mr Rollings: It was not a fact that while the party lived at her house that the two men occupied one room and the two women the other room. She did not actually see how they occupied the rooms at night. By His Honour: It’was a fact that the respondent and co-respond-ent registered as Mr and Mrs Nielsen and the other couple as Mr and Mrs Nelson.

John Donaldson, retired farmer, husband of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. To Mr Rollings; He had seen “Mr and Mrs Nielsen” go into one room, and “Mr and Mrs Nelson” in the other room.

Constable Woods, of Foxton, said that he had known petitioner, de Bidder, during the last 14 years. Petitioner was a respectable Avorking man, and a sober map. He bad no knoAvledge of his starving his wife and children. They Avere alAvays avcll dressed and avcll clothed. Although complaints had been made, he had never seen anything to suggest that Mrs de Bidder Avas “Highly.’-’

To Mr Rollings: On one occasion Mrs de Bidder had complained to him that her husband had assaulted her, but there were no marks on her to suggest this. George Huntley, roadman at boxton for the Borough Council, said that he had lived near de Bidder’s house for about seven years. As far as Avitncss knoAV, the petitioner was of good character, and novel abused Ins Avifc and children. This closed the case for the petitioner.

THE DEFENCE.

The respondent, Alice de Kidder, in the course of her evidence, smd that at the time of her marriage she was not quite 15 years old. A child, of which .petitioner was the father, was born three days before the marriage, She married him to save him from trouble. For the last live years site had had a dogs life with the petitioner. When they were first married her husband was in such poor circumstances that she had lived with him in a tent. Petitioner was now worth about £1,500, Now that | petitioner had become prosperous he had tired of her. He was always complaining and assaulting her. He would not clothe the children properly. For the last two years he had stopped her credit at the stores. He used to save up all his money and bank it. She herself never received any from him. On one occasion he had actually turned her out of doors. Once he struck her, and broke a bone in her nose, from which injury she was still suffering. Kespondent went into detail regarding her allegations of cruelty against petitioner, and contended that the last two months she lived with him she was nearly starved. Coming to the occasion she went away from Foxton, witness said That she was accompanied only by Miss Nellie Crcwes. The lirst night they slept at Levin. The next day they went to Wellington, where they stayed one night, and then proceeded to Featherston. She Jirst met Nielsen in Wellington. She accidentally met co-respondent in the street, in company with her brother. Co-respondent Nielsen was a mutual friend of the petitioner and herself. The whole party —the four of them—travelled together from Wellington to Fcatherston. She shared a room at the hotel with Miss Crcwes, and the two men slept in another building, they then vent to Masierton, and put up at Donaldson’s for a week. ALLEGATIONS DENIED.

While (hero witness and Miss Crowes slept in one room and her brother and the co-respondent in another room. Their object in travelling round the country a\us 1„ look for work. From Donaldson’s she and Miss Crewes went out in the country and worked on a station, and did the cooking, the two men were employed as ploughmen. They stayed there several weeks, ami then had to leave on account of the illness of her brother, a returned soldier, who was badly gassed while on active service. I'or this reason he was not in attendance at Court that day as a witness. 'While on the station she again shared a, room with Miss Crewes. The whole of the time she was away from home she wenf under hei maiden name of Miss Nelson. It was not true that she had ever called herself Mrs Nielsen. The next move they made was to Masterton, where witness obtained employment at the Prince of Wales Hotel, and she was still employed there. She slept in premises at the back of. the hotel, along with the rest of the female staff. Nielsen never came to her room. The men went to Carterton to work. She had never on any occasion herself with the co-respondent. Nielsen had been a good friend to her by* helping her with money when she was ill and in need. Her husband had not supplied her with any money while she was away. V hen he visited her at Masterton the petitioner asked her to go back, but she refused on account of the way ho had treated her at Eoxton, She had never made any 7 admissions to petitioner regarding her actions. Since she had left Eoxton she had reason to believe that four of the children had to sleep in one bed, and they were not looked after. She wanted custody of them in order that she might care for them.

To Air Aloorc: She had not taken any 7 steps to look after her children since she had left home, because she was not in a position to do so. The evidence of Constable Woods that on the occasion of her complaint to him there were no marks

on her was not correct. Mrs Nelson (nee Miss Grewes) could not get, up to Palmerston to give evidence, neither could witness’ brother, the latter on account of sickness.

Co-respondent, Edmund Nielsen, in his evidence, denied that there had been any misconduct between him and Mrs de Bidder at Masterton. Witness slept in the same room with Charlie Nelson.

Witness, who spoke without difficulty, hut was a little hard of hearing, was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Moore. ' Mary Jane Nelson, mother of the respondent, residing at Foxton, gave evidence for the defence. In the course of this she said that respondent had frequently complained to witness of ill-treatment, and on one occasion had coine to her, early in the morning, showing marks of violence on her face and throat. Respondent had also complained to witness about the insufficiency of food.

Lizzie de Bidder, a sister of the respondent, said that she Avas married to a brother of the petitioner, who Avas a flax cutter at Foxton. Witness gave evidence touching the alleged illtreatment of respondent by petitioner. Although lie bad “stacks of money,” petitioner would not provide enough food for his wife and children. Witness herself had taken food to the house on more than one occasion, and had also given respondent’s children money to buy food. His Honour, after revicAving the evidence at length, submitted four issues to the jury. The jury deliberated over the matter for lavo hours, and then returned Avitli the folloAving ans Avers: —

(1) Did respondent commit adultery Avitli the co-respondent at Master ton? —Yes.

(2) Did co-respondent commit adultery Avitli the respondent at Mastorton? —Yes.

(3) Did the petitioner at Masterton condone the alleged adultery? — No

(4) Was the petitioner guilty of cruelty to the respondent?—No. His Honour then granted a decree nisi, which may he made absolute in three mouths, with costs on the highest scale against the co-re-spondent, the Avife’s costs to he included in those payable by the corespondent. The question of the custody of the children and access to them avus reserved.