WRONGDOING OF IVY DOOGOOD

NZ Truth, Issue 1141, 13 October 1927, Page 7

WRONGDOING OF IVY DOOGOOD

Former Film Man's Double Success In Divorce Petition Against His Pretty GirLWife

Richards Confesses Love For Married Woman And Is Saved From Thrashing By \ His Staff

HUSBAND CLAIMS DAMAGES FROM CO-RE.

THE fact that he was at the time boosting Charlie Chaplin's Keystone comedies and was himself impersonating the comedian as a publicity stunt did not detract from the seriousness of his infatuation. He told a special jury m Melbourne that he and his bride were perfectly happy till Thomas Peter Richards, editor and part proprietor o£ the Maryborough "Advertiser," came into the picture. Doogood claimed £1000 damages from Richards, but the jury awarded him £100. He was granted a divorce and was ordered to pay an eighth of his costs, Richards to provide the remaining seven-eighths. As the case lasted three and a-half days and the bar was a fairly expensive one, the costs will amount to a great deal more than the damages. Mrs. Ivy Winifred Doogood did not defend the suit and her present whereabouts are unknown. Doogood is 34 and his wife is ten years younger. She was just out of her teens when he married her m Wellington, New Zealand, on May 31, 1923. He had gone over there m 1921, on a salary of £20 a week, it was said, to find a market for certain Charlie Chaplin films. When that contract ran out, he became assistant manager of the " ll11 "»»» Queen's ' Theatre, *z Wellington. | He was staying at | the Arcadian Hotel, I and there made the | acquaintance of §j pretty Ivy Murant. § After they had | been engaged for ; five weeks, she left, ostensibly to visit i hpr rich aunt m g the country. f As he heard no \ further word of her he made inquiries \ and discovered that she had been sent to a reformatory prison for 12 months for theft. Two days after her release, he gave her the protection o f his name by marrying her. A little later he became a member of the Boucicault company and travelled to Melbourne with it. His girl -wife joined him there •■ as soon as he could yyu arrange her pas- aro( sage. ma > In August, 1925, he called on Rich-

ards at the Mary- timummiiiimiiiimmimmmiiimiiiiii borough "Advertiser" office as a representative of New Zealand Perpetual Forests, Ltd. w and subsequently, when the "Advertiser" was increased m size, Richards induced him to become business manager at £ 5/10/- a week and commission. One night, Mrs. Doogood did not come home till 2 a.m. She told him, after a time, he said, that she had been out m a car with Richards and that it had broken down. At 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning Doogood asked Richards what he meant by "I can't help it," replied Richards. "I love her." He then went away. Later Doogood told Richards to come and repeat to Mrs. Richards his statement about lovinfl Mrs. Doogood. They all adjourned to Richards' home. Doogood told Mrs. Richards, after telling Richards he was "nothing but a dirty, cur." "Is that true?" demanded Mrs. Richards, stepping up to her husband. "Yes," he admitted. Mrs. Richards promptly fainted. When she regained consciousness she ordered Mrs. Doogood out of the house. Bitter words followed, said Doogood, and before the men realized what was happening, the two women were fighting desperately, tearing each other's hair and scratching. Mrs. Doogood, after about two minutes, broke away, and rushed weeping from the house. Thrashed In Office Richards and Doogood continued the argument, which was interrupted by the ringing of the telephone bell. On Richards and Mrs. Doogood promising not to see one another again, the matter was dropped, but they didn't keep this promise, according to Doogood. One Sunday soon after' this exciting day, Mrs. Doogood ■ declared that she loved Richards. Doogood went and gave Richards a thrashing' m his office, he told the court. Two reporters rushed m and rescued the editor. Subsequently, said Doogood, his wife ran away to Ballarat with Richards on i two occasions. The second time he gave Richards such a hiding that he was m bed for three weeks. Later, his wife left finally and he learned that she had spent three days with Richards at a Portarlington hotel. Lawyer Gorman (for Richards): i Since the marriage has your wife left you for another married man besides Richards? — No. Did you give evidence to that effect at the Maryborough court? — No. I .said

3 c (From "N.Z. Truth'B" Special Melbourne Representative.) Married m New Zealand four years ago, Leonard Joseph Doogood had served a long apprenticeship m the screen variety of love as traveller for various film organisations before he fell m love himself. ii!HHiiiiiuiiiiiuuiniiiiiiiiMuuiniiiiiiuuiiiiuuiuuuinnniiiiHniuunimHitiiniiiunKiHNMN»MiuiiiiHMiiiHiiniiiniuiuniuniiHiiiiuiiiuiiunniiiniiHinnmiiiiuii

I had heard that before marriage she had gone away with a married man. I suggest you were always quarrelling with her and used as a lever the fact that she had been convicted? — No. Never. » • Did you not frequently thrust your wife into this man's company?— No. He used to come to . the office with me I .

here and I am not going to leave it?" — No. Did he say: "The company owes you sufficient money to tide you over while you are looking for another job. Why not take it and go?"— No. I had a lot of trouble to collect it. Your reason for claiming £1000 is merely to punish Richards?— Yes.

and then sneak __ -, _. ... You are not anxiback to the flat. •• VPI*V drPflt Rp&aYa ous to make a After things came V CI J WCOI l\Cg<U U large sum of to a head, the money?—l don't

people at the flats ' ~ told me he was there night after night, Richards says the whole of the trouble arose when he came to you and said: "I and Mrs. Doogood have been together a lot and she is developing an affection for me. Hadn't you better go to Melbourne and take her with you?" —Never. Did you say: "I have a good job iinniiinMMiiHHnniHHHtHuiiutMiHniMHMiMiMnnniniJMniiniHHHMnMniiHiniMuniii

VELDS had been charged, first and third, with attempted serious offence? and, second and fourth, with attempted assault. Lawyer G. Reed, of Invercargill, invited the court to draw a distinction between these charges and met with a refusal. Opening his arguments, Lawyer Reed submitted that Velds' actions were merely preparatory and that m law Intent was not sufficient; there must be evidence of attempt. Velds had met the girls, had asked them to show him the way to a store and had offered them money. Judge Sim: "What innocent purpose could he have had?" Lawyer Reed: "He could not have had any innocent purpose." Judge Herdman: "If he had not an innocent purpose, what purpose had he?" This was too much of a poser for Lawyer Reed. Continuing. his argument, he pointed out that the jury had found the man guilty on the first and third counts, but not on the second and fourth. Judge Adams: "Surely the first count covers the whole ground!" Lawyer Reed: "But the first and third counts might have been withdrawn, though not the charges of assault. . "At the back of his mind, of course, he must have had some guilty intention. I don't think we could argue against that. "But an attempted serious offence is very different from assault." Judge Herdman: "I don't see that." Lawyer Reed commenced to develop the question of degree of assault and where a case reached the stage of an attempted serious offence. Judge Adams: "Is that not for the jury when you get as far as that? They must determine the precise nature of an offence." Lawyer Reed regaled himself for

wish to make money out of this sort of thing; but why should he not suffer for what he has made me suffer? But jou say you have given him several hidings?— Yes, and I would give him another. "Would you take your wife back now?— No. Did you say to your wife: "I've got inuuiuuiitnininnttttfntHruMMiriiiMnniMitfNHMriMMHiiiiMiiinMMinniiMiitiii

some minutes with legal authorities, quoting cases where men named Barker and Cope had written letters to children and m which it had been decided that an offence had been committed. Judge Adams: "If a man goes to the trouble of speaking to several little girls whom .he does not know, one by one, and offers them money and makes certain remarks, isn't there a coercive influence there?" They would be going further than ever before and opening the door for conviction for acts which were not yet criminal offences jf they endorsed the conviction, said Lawyer Reed. The accused might have been convicted of attempting to assault these girls, but not of an attempted serious offence against them. Judge Herdman: "I don't see that. It makes no difference." Judge Ostler: "It might make a dif- \ ference of two or three years' imprisonment!" Judge Herdman: "Usually if a man commits one offence he will commit the other." Lawyer Reed: "If this conviction is sustained it goes further than any case yet." Judge Sim: "It is exactly the same as Barker's case." Judge Herdman: "It is stronger than Barker's case, because here we have the observation made by the man. What is that consistent with? Only with a certain intention m the mind of the man." Solicitor-General Fair was not. called on by the bench, Judge Herdman giving his opinion that the circumstances were the same as m Barker's case and that the appeal should be dismissed. All the other judges agreed, though Judge Ostler stated that ~he 3id so with some diffidence, thinking that the case was onJtfie border-line.

3 = — Richards this time and I'll be £1000 richer before long?" — No. When were you last employed? — Up to two. or three weeks <igo I was travelling round the suburbs with "Miss Australia" for Australian Films. Did you ever say to Richards: "You have a literary reputation and it is worth something to keep me quiet?" — No. Did you say if you got enough money you would take a long sea trip and forget all about this case? — Never. All you wanted was your wife back? —Yes. Mrs. Doogood refrained from denying her husband's charges, nor did she come to court to defend her reputation. Richards himself did not attempt that chivalrous task, but rather sought to show that if Doogood was to receive anything as compensation for her loss, it should not exceed a farthing. "The woman stated she loved me, but I put her aside, although her husband persistently threw me into her company and refused to take her away when advised to do so," said Richards. Three or four times when they had arranged to go on business trips round the countryside, he said, Doogood found some excuse for not going, but acquiesced m his wife being Richards' sole companion. iiniiiiiiiimiiiiiimmiiiimiiimiiiiiimi "i nke your company," Richards told her, "but it is not right for you to be doing it." Then she said: "I have been very happy m Maryborough and have formed a very great regard for you." Richards said he began to get uneasy. "It would be ill-advised to continue," 'he thought, but she disagreed. "I love you," she told him passionately, according to Richards, who said he then told Mrs. Doogood that she should go to her husband at once and tell him, so that he could take her away from Maryborough. She agreed to tell her husband. The following morning he saw the Doogoods. "Is this true what my wife has told me?" asked Doogood. Believing the reference was to the

incident of the day before, he answered m the affirmative and added: "You should take your wife 'away as soon as you can." "But I have a good job and want to keep it," protested Doogood. "In any case," he said, "you have a reputation and it should be worth something to keep this quiet, you know." Richards retorted: "Neither, your wife nor I has done any harm and you have been responsible for, throwing us together so much." Doogood took his wife aside and held a whispered conference with her. . Then he came back to Richards and' asked: "Are you prepared to tell this to your wife?" "I said: 'Certainly'," continued Richards, "and we went straight up to my house, I told my wife m their presence that Mrs. Doogood had formed an attachment for me. "Mrs. Richards agreed that the best thing to do was for Doogood to take his wife away. Mrs. Doogood wanted to go, but her husband refused to lake her." "Doogood then said: 'If I could take a sea trip on my own, I would forget all about it." Richards gave an altogether different account of the fight m his office from that told by Doogood. He said he had occasion to reprimand Doogood for his arrogant manner towards customers of the paper. Doogood retorted: "What do you mean by being out with my wife so much?" * When told it was not true, Doogood said: "You are a liar." iThree Fateful Days Richards said he struck Doogood and then closed with him. Doogood "clawed" his face, but did not give him the hiding he had said he had. Richards denied that he had spent three days at Portarlington with Mrs. Doogood or stayed with her m Geelong. Under cross-examination, he admitted that his wife had obtained an order for £4 a week maintenance m the Maryborough court, mainly on evidence regarding the Portarlington trip. The only time he had taken Mrs. Doogood to Bendigo, he said, was when she had arranged to visit the daughter of the Rev. A. Worrall, who was a friend of hers. Mrs. Mclntosh, sister-in-law of Richards, told the court that at Richards' request she noted down the dates on which he visited her at Geelong. "Richards said he wanted her to do it m case there was trouble with Doogood." She produced a book with all the dates neatly entered up, including the dates on which he was supposed to have been at Portarlington with Mrs. Doogood. The jury' awarded Doogood £100 damages. A decree nisi was granted.