PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10604, 1 June 1920, Page 5

PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE

CHARGES AGAINST WIFE RETURNED SOLDIER ALLEGES INITDELITV. "THIS IS INSAXITV," SAYS JUDGE. The petition of Chailes Frederick Amnion, farmer, of Whangamomona, Taranaki, for a divorce from Daisy Geraldine Mary Amnion, on the ground of adultery with 'William Iteilly, tramway employee, of Wellington, was heard before His Honour -Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve at tho Supreme Court- yesterday. Petitioner claimed £MO damages irom the co-re-jpondent and custody of his- child. The parties were married on April loth, IDI2, at Avondale, Auckland, and ;ostded at Henderson. There was one ;hild, which was born in October, VOl3. In September. 19115, and at, other dates lip to the following year, iti was alleged, respondent committed adultery .villi one William KeiUy, with whom the was still living in. adultery. Air A. IS. Sievwright appea'rad for f.h& petitioner, .Mr I'. W. Jackson for the respondent, and .Ur A. W. Blair for the co-respondent. -Ur Georgo Charuiau was foreman of the jury. Air Sievwright, in opening the case,

,'iaid that it was one ot those unfortunate instances of a wife being seduced during the absence of her. husband at the war. The petitioner had amply provided for respondent during; his absence. On his return she was still well provided for, but her affections towards him had changed somewhat on account nf the attentions of the co-iespondent. COOLED AFFECTIONS. Petitioner stated in evidence, that he '.renu into camp a,c Feathcrston at the end of 1916: his wife accompanied him and lived at l-'eatliersloiL lor about ihree weeks. Bight up to the_timel of hi; departure in. •_Ma / rch,(iyl7, with the 2ord Mounted Bides, she was a good wife, and a splendid mother to her child. While he was away the respondent, was drawing in ad £'2 14s Cd per week in allotment, separation allowance, children's allowance, etc. All letters that paired between them were of a loving and affectionate nature. On Christmas Eve, 1917,/pe-ti- . tioncr returned as a cot case trom

Egypt. There was no one" to meet him at the wharf, and on making inquiry he ascertained that respondent bad left the house at which she had been living in Wellington. On Christmas Day "ho found his wife and child ax breakfast at the People's Palace m Cuba street. His wife's affections appeared to have cooled. He secured a room in Svdnev street and stayed with ids familv'for a few days, during which time he bad uo intercourse with his ;vife. She was under the care of a ioctor. Witness secured home service work at Featherston camp, but on returning to town on leave, found that 1 bis wife had left Sydney street and \tixs livins on The Terrace. .Later he meib her in the street*. Subscquentlyq •witness took ill and had to go to hospital. Proceeding, witness said that . he had not sDoken to- his wife since July 20th, 1918. The first intimation he received that bus wife was seeking a separation was by letter from her solicitor, alleging that he was not 1 maintaining liiri wife and child, and based on bis temper and gambling nab-* its He was unable to locate his wife and child, and continued to live a,t the Soldiers' Hostel. HIS WIFE TURNED AWAY.

Abouk the time of the Armistice he again tell ill, and entered the public hospital. During the period of his treatment ho was one day standing outside the buildins when, he saw lus wife approaching. As soon as she-saw him, however, she -turned and walked sway, On his discharge from hospital ho went to live at New Plymouth, iijad later took a farm at Whangamomona. In, December last he came to Wellington to endeavour to find his wife, but could not get any information as to her whereabouts/but learned fr ? m -*f° of Births that she had given Wrth to a child in June, 1919, and that be had been named as the ****>?*■. From other information gleaned ho instituted divorce proceedings. MISCONDUCT ALLEGED. Mrs Alice Myrtle ETien gave evidence as to the respondent e relations •with co-respondent. At the request of > Reilly, who told her he had got respondent into trouble,. Witness agrWl to take Mrs Amnion into her house, on condition that ene paid 10a a week for her five-year-old .child, While Mw Amnion should «mt» the housework. On June 22nd 1919, respondent gave birth to a child. Reilly fitayed at the house, but occupied a room apart from Mrs Ammon. Reilly told witness that Mrs Ammon said he was the father of the Add. and that Mrs Ammon wished mm to be near. On occasions • Reilly had spent several hours with Mrs Ammon in her hedroom, dressed in his pyjamas or !his underclothing. . John Mcßrido gave evidence as to petitioner's character. RESPONDENT'S DENIAL.

Called into the witness-box by Mi aackson, Mrs Amnion declared that petitioner resumed matrimonial relations with her shortly after his return from Egypt, while she was living in Sydney street. On other occasions petitioner jhad matrimonial relations with her. When she infoimed him ol her condition, ho laughed, and said it could not be so. Continuing, witness said that, she had previously known jfteilly, who wa3 staying at Mrs Eden's. She denied that Kenly was responsible for her condition. "Heilly had. never entered her bedroom, and it was incorrect that ho bad ever been in her room for several hours- in his pyjamas. When she went to stay at Mrs Eden's she undertook to pay SSI a week in addition to doing housework. Before she became ill she wished to find lodging*, and she asked Reilly's advice; he directed her to Mrs Eden's house. Shemade no mention to him of the fact that she was in :i certain condition. During her residence at Mrs Eden s she prepared Reilly'a meals, and received therefor &1 per week. AN ALTERED ENTRY.

The next witness called was H/nry Dunn, assistant manager of tho People's Palace, who produced the visitors' book, in which the name AmBiol appeared under certain dates. Cross-examined by Mr Sievwright, witness admitted that in two instances it was apparent that an erasure had ■been made and the name "Amnion" inserted. The letters "itigs" were faintlv legible after the insertion. Witness had no idea, how the alteration had come to be made. Elizabeth Cunningham, a hoarder at Mr 3 Eden's, was questioned by Mr Sievwright 'as to Reilly's • relation*

with the respondent. Although most of the inmates of the boarding establishment were known to one anothei by their Christian names, she bad not heard Keilly address Mrs Ammon as Daisy. Francis Leonard Eden was called into the witness-box by Mr Blair. Mr Blair: Was any statement mads •bv your wife as to what she had been offered for her services in connection with this case?—Yes. My wife told me Mr Ammon had offered £SO, or probably £75, if be won his case. To Mr Sievwright: Sho had mad» that statement to him since the papers were served in January last, but he could not give the exact date.

Witness, continuing, said: My wire told me trait Mr Sievwright had put in a claim for £SO for her expenses in this case. I asked what it was fur. She said for her expenses.

What expenses?—l don't know. His Honour: This ~ k insanity. Tfc is absolute nonsense. It can have no meaning. , Mr Sievwright (to witness): Was it not common knowledge ' n your house that Reillv was the father of the child?—Xo.

Tt wan discussed by no one?—No. After further cross-examination, the witness left the box, and Mr Blair intimated that ho proposed to call the co-respondent and possibly another witness.

His Honour thereupon adjourned the- case till 10.30 a.m. to-day.