RIDDLE OF WOMAN'S LETTER TO JUDGE
THE3 full report of the' petition instituted by Henry Harley, in which he alleged that his wife, Mary Harley, had committed misconduct with Gore-Edwards in the boardinghouse kept by respondent at Waihi, appeared In "N.Z. Truth" last -week. In dismissing the -petition, his honor rejected the evidence of the petitioner and Lawrence James Potter, private inquiry agent, that they had discovered Mrs, Harley and Edwards in a compromising situation during a raid on the Waihi boarding-house on the night of November 7. . . Similarly, the Judge refused to be-. lieve the evidence given' by a Dalmatian named Zanimovich that he had -^as a boarder in the house — seen respondent and Edwards asleep in bed together. Other witnesses in the earlier proceedings had deposed to having seen Edwards frequently entering and leaving Mrs. Barley's room, while petitioner and a young man from a fish shop stated that they had seen the Archbishqp's nephew in one bed on the verandah and Mrs. Harley in another, with just a small table separating the two beds. Lawyer Lilly opened the battle on the point that had already been argued at length— and decided — at the pre- I vious . hearing, when Judge Blair held J that Edwards had been served with the j papers on December 19, 1927, citing him as co-respondent. With the idea, apparently, that with the further evidence he had collected in the interim, he might induce his honor to change his mind, counsel asked permission to call two witnesses ! who would swear thatßdwardß could not have been in Auckland on the date mentioned, because he had been seen "Highly Improper" in Hamilton and later in Paeroa on December 19. Though he had already determined this point, Judge Blair . agreed 1 to "ear the additional evidence. . ; • The first witness, David E. Duthoit, looking rather worried, stated that he was president of . Brain's Commercial College, Hamilton. He had first met Roderick GoreEdwards in November iast and had taken an Interest in him, because he considered him to be "a war-sick soldier." 'Edwards hafl stayed with him at Hamilton from December 8 until December 19. ' > . ■ v On the latter date he had left the house at 11 a.m. intimating his intention of going to 'Waihi that day. Duthoit was convinced that Edwards could not have been in Auckland to accept service, as alleged by Frederick Jackson, the private inquiry agont. Cross- examined by Lawyer Schramm, witness admitted that it would have been quite possible for Edwards to have caught the train to Auckland instead of to Waihi. . The Waihi train left. Hamilton a few minutes before 1 p.m.; while there were two itrains for Auckland, one at 12.40 ,p.m. and the other at 1.10 p.m; : There was a dramatic, interlude at the conclusion of Duthoit's evidence, when Judge Blair, passing over a sheet of paper, asked: "Do you. know that signature?" — "Yes, it is my wife's." • The judge: "Yes, I thought so, because of the similarity in the names." 'This letter is an attempt by the lady who signed it to prejudice me a6 far as this case is concernad," added his honor. "It is highly Improper." ; . •<■ . Thd v letter pointed out that a certain case would come before him and that he had to make allowances "for a man Concerned -in it." . This mart's name contained in a sealed envelope enclosed in the letter itaelf. Holding up the sealed .enveloy>e, the judge stated that he' had not op.ened. it .— "naturally"— and had only been able to recognize the case referred to becaiifle of the similarity of names when the witness entered the box. ,' Duthoit said he Was quite unaware of the letter, adding that his wife was not acquainted with legal prooedure. Hla honor repeated that Jt wair an attempt to Interfere with the administration of justice and he would find IJIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Archbishop's Nephew As Partner In Fish and Chip Venture That Proved A Fiasco
COURT REJECTS HUSBAND'S ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
.miHum«HiiiiMMwnMiiiiiuMiiHßimiiiHrtiitmiiiMu*imt!i«™^^ l^immiiiuihiimunimnimiwiliiiiiiuHiiiimiitminHimmimmimiiiuiiH^^ i»iMMHUiKtiilitnimiinnniiimii**ilimiiiinHuiiiiiiiiuiiHiMiwiMHiiiit»iHJiiiinmmmomi«itiiiiiiiiiiuiH«n»uminnjiiiMiniiniiiiiitiw| || , (From "N.Z. Truth's'! Special Auckland Representative.) SI
"I DISMISS THE PETITION. 0 Long before Judge Blair uttered these words, bringing to its culmination one of the most remarkable divorce suits heard in the Queen City for some considerable time, the petitioner, Henry Harley, farmer, of Waihi, came under the lash of scathing judicial comment because of the nature of certain allegations he had made and because^f his treatment of his wife, Mary Harley. Not the least remarkable part of the proceedings, which fairly bristled with unusual features, was the grim determination displayed by the wife to fight to a finish for her honor. Though he did hot defend the case, the co-respondent, Roderick Willoughby Gore-Edwards, nephew of the Archbishop of Wales, entered the witnessbox and emerged from a searching cross-examination as triumphantly as his alleged mistress.
Eg 1 i = 2 if =,iiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiuraiiimii«m»iiiiimviiiraHiimnniiimoH«iiinim«in»iiuaiHiimimi«i(itmn«ii siiuiuiiiiiiuii]iin>mniiHtiiiHiiHiiiniitiiitmniirmniiniu<iu<mmiiiimiiniumiiHitKiMiiHiuiiiiimiiii
it necessary to take further action in the matter. People miist clearly understand that they could not interfere ' with the course of justice, whether it waa done with the best of intentions or the worst. "It has made this case very difficult for me," the Judge concluded. Lawyer Lilly disclaimed all knowr lodge of the letter, while witness again intimated that he knew nothing of his wife's intention. The second witness called to support the claim of non-service on the co-, respondent was Margaret Williams, a married woman living at Karangahake. A'his witness stated that she had met. Eflwjtrdfl on the Waihi bus at Paeroa on December 19 about 3.80 p.m. She remembered the date and the incident because it was the Monday before school broke up. Cross-examined, Mrs. Williams said Edwards had asked her if she oould remember the day she met him in the bue. This was after Mrs. Harley's cade came on in Auckland. She could not remember where she was on December 20, the day after the bus incident. . : ■ , To a further question, she said "she could not swear that it was not the previous Monday when she had seen Edwardfe in the bus. r .His Honor: "I am satisfied that Edwards was served on December 19. My view has not been disturbed by the additional evidence." Lawyer Lilly then continued respondent's' case by calling evidence in rebuttal of allegations made by Zanimovich that he had Been the corespondent and Mary Harley asleep in bed in one of the rooms of the board-ing-house during the early months of this year. v' . . ■ , * i ' i- '■ -i - ■ : ' *■" — ' His Wife's Room David Dutholt and another witheas named . Eugene Brain, farmer, swore that Edwards had been staying at their homes from January 6 until March 8 or 9. On April 10, said Duthoit, the co-respondent had gone to Auckland. Mrs. /Williams was recalled io give evidence as to the occupancy of the different rooms. \ Miss Hart's room, she said, waa the second on the left t)f the passage and Mrs. Harley's tlie second on the right. In previous evidence, petitioner and His private inquiry agent, Lawrence J. Potter* had sworn that they listened under a window which . pulled down from the top on the, night they raided j the house,, that the room they raided was the, v. second on the left and that they saw : Edwards jump off the bed, while Mrs; Harley, who was in her night attire, hurriedly arranged the bedclothes. ■*' - . : Mrs. Williams asserted that. Mrai Harley occupied the bedi'oom on . the .right; there was ho window in that room at all, but French doors which opened out on to the Verandah. Edwards was in the house at; the time of her visit, she said, but though lie had chopped the wood for her, he had not helped her with the washing. Mrs, Mary Ann CallhMfham, pf.Waikino, also corroborated the evidence respecting the occupancy of the rooms and the absence of any window lh that occupied by Mrs. Harley. Respondent again entered the box. when Lawyer Schramm called for the production of her record -book of persons who had stayed at her boardinghouse and on which he had already cross -examined her. "I did not bring ;it," said Mrs. Harley, "because' I did not think you be-" 1 lieved in it. I was given to understand that the book could hot be relied upon." • ' ;■ Lawyer Lilly at this stage tendered a birth certificate showing that Mrs. ; Harley's son, Harry Harley, was registered as. Harry Booth. Edwards' Travels Counsel: . Have you ever occupied Miss Hart's room) tfre . sfetorid .YoGta. on the left?— l have never done so thi^s 'year. .. V - . Mrs. Harley added that she, had travelled about a lot this .year for a firm of corset manufacturers. She was away from Waihi during March and April. To support this, she produced^ a number of butts' from order-slips. r ■ So far, as. she was concerned, she would welcome a divorce, but she objected to the way her husband was £oing about it. . , In the ordinary course of events, she could herself .obtain ' a .divorce in twelve months' time on the ground oi mutual , separation. '! ! Crosd-examined, respondent said sh,e had never returned to Waihi for the night,, so, far as she could remember, during March and April. -, <:, ShWhad met Edwards on these trips vyhen she was travelling for corsets',. once at Te Puke and again at Rotorua, The meetings had not ■'been, arranged between them. She was not in Waihi from the middle to 'the end of February of this year. ■ : : '• ■ . • • Lawyer Schramm! What were you doing in Rotorua?— l was there with the other .travellers and I went one day to the : races. Who were the other travellers?-— Mr. joll, from Waitoa. . . ' His Honor: This was the man who was sharing the expense of the oar?— Yes, he is an elderly man and has , a grown-up 'family.' ; : Mrs, Harley added that Edwards was then employed by Joll. ' On Easter Monday she arrived in Auckland and went, to stay with her
ii iiiliiHmriiHtininiiiiMnnnmiliiiiiitiiiniitiniiiimriniiiiniiiiMiitiiitiinuniMiittiiitlicilHiiilMHiiiii iitiiitiiiiriiiKUjiiiiniiiniiiiiiiiMiitiiiiiiiiiHHuiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiitminimutfniHnniHiiiiitHintiiiMiiiiit
son at Takapuna, leaving there for Waihi on April 18. Lawyer Schramm gleaned from respondent that Edwards was also staying with her Bon at Takapuna when she arrived there. He remained as a visitor during her o^rn stay and continued on after she departed. He had, it appeared, been invited by her son. Lawyer Schramm left the subject of the Takapuna visit to inquire into Ed- , wards' movements since the adjourn -^ ment of the, divorce proceedings the week before. . . , Had he been staying with respondent? He had, Mrs. Harley annouhced, with a slight smile. . Touching on work in its relation to the Archbishop's nephew, respondent informed Lawyer Schramm that once upon a time she and Edwards had decided to go in for. a fish and chip business in the boarding-house. Edwards, even if he happened to be the nephew of the Archbishop of Wales, had very demooratid ideas, since the arrangement was that he should run the diningroom while Mrs. Harley attended to the boarding-house. '.'He had received some money ff om his people .at ' Home," . she explained. The venture fell through, because. "we
could not . get the flsh>" she added. They had to face considerable 1 opposition and competition. ."■'■' Judge Blair: "For how long at a time was this man at your place during the year?" '■ : . Mrs. Harley launched off Into an explanation concerning "fish and chips," but was promptly requested by the judge to forget that unsuccessful business venture. She then replied that Edwards would stay "somewhere near a week at a time." ■''.■'''. Af ter. a lengthy silence, her answer to the next question was .that this happened about' half-a-dozen times in L'he year. When he was there, he paid her for his room. . . Mrs. Harley's explanation of Zanimovlch's allegations against her was that he was vindictive because she had refused to allow him to sleep in her room, cme night and had ordered him- out of her house. • Mary Elizabeth^Booth, respondent's daughter -in -law, informed the court that she had invited 'Edwards to stay at her home at Takapuna because they had- met at Mrs. Harley's place, : On two visits to Waihi she and her # husband met Edwards and they were friendly with him. The co-re., if seemed, had not written and told her he was- coming to stay, but arrived on the , Monday.;, Mfs. Harley amved the next day. , Last Easter, when Edwards was there, Mrs. Harley was also present/ ad well, aa her son. : . Mrs. .Booth and her husband occupied their own. bedroom, Mrs. parley and her son, Jaels, the other! tooya, and
Edwards slept in the dining-room. Judge Blair: So that for the four weeks Edwards wae there, you boarded and fed him?— Yes, he was not working* Roderick Willoughby Gore-Edwards came forward to say his little piece. Cool and suave when he took the stand, as on his first appearance, nevertheless he very quickly assumed an attitude of concentration when the barrage of cross-examination fell upon him. For the most part he was repeatedly biting his upper lip or fumbling at his mouth with his fingers. Edwards said he was not an Oxford man and had never told anybody that he was. He had been educated at Hirstmere and at Burstow College, Surrey.. After a period served in, the Canadian Forces, he was discharged and then joined the British Army In the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps. "The Devil's Own," he added, with a smile for his honor. Lawyer Lilly: "You are related to — •■• . : 'His Honor: "I am not asking for that. It does . not matter and has no relevancy." : "■'Edwards stated that he obtained
iiiiiiuiiuuiiiiiiiiimuiiiiiiuiiiiiiuiiiiiimmiiiiiuiiliitKiiimiHHmiiiiiinH'i" 1 "' 1 " 1 " 1 " 1 " 11 "" 1 "" 11 "' money from his* people when he required it. By occupation he was a salesman. In September and October/1927, he had stayed as long as ten days or two weeks on end at Mrs. Harley's place in Waihi, but during that time he would i be out all day at work. . " Edwards reiterated his former statement that he had never seen Jackson in his life and did not remember him staying at Mrs. Harley's place about November 7, 1927. ■ .. He could not remember the dramatic qpisode when Mrs. Harley's room was raided, as alleged toy petitioner, on November 7 and he was found in a compromising situation with her. "it never happened," he declared. .: , About November 7 he was' staying at "Highcroft" boarding-house • in Hamilton and remained there until December 9. . Afterwards he had stayed with David Duthoit, and later with his friend, Brain, until about' Mar«h 8 or 9. He then went' travelling with Joll for soft goods and returned to Hamilton about April 9. .'....- --"I waa not in Waihi between March 19 and,, April 9," declared Edwards.. He went 1 to Waihi on May 5 and found 'Mrs. Harley ill in bed. , Counsel then read the evidence given by Zanimovich to the effect that he had seen Edwards and Mrs. Harley in bed together. ' . /'lt's a' He, sir," asserted the co-re. He also denied that he -had told Zanimovich he Intended to marry Mrs. Harley. : .
iniuuiniimwi(miiKiimnmi»iiiiuimiiiiii(Hcmraimuimcmmi»HniuiruiiummuMmiimraniiiSj Miißiiiiimio«JulmKiiinmiimniimniiiraiinimmmimimii!nnnmrtm»miiiiruiiiiiiHimimiiiiim
Questioned as to an interview he had with the' police, Edwards explained that.lt arose over a man who had insulted Mrs. Harley. : When this particular individual was drunk, *hls favorite recreation, according to Edwards, was to bowl large chunks of stone along the passage of the boarding-house. "I think I had drink myself," the core, added, explaining the climax which finally led to the obstreperous gentleman "stopping one." '■ "I think I interfered," he continued. "In fact, we came to blows and it was in connection with this episode that the police interviewed me. No further action wm taken, though." Lawyer I Schramm: You said you went to Hamilton on November 6. and Jackson says you were in the" house on November 7? — He might be right. Edwards denied that he had ever written anything for the sleuth, Jackson. He asserted emphatically that he had never even seen him. Lawyer Schramm promptly produced an envelope^ which ho .passed to witness, asking him to look at the writing and say whose it was. - Edwards (in a rather hushed voice): "It is extraordinarily Jike mine!" Counsel: "Jackson swore that you wrote this in front of himself and young Harley." - , Edwards had another long look at the writing and repeated that it was "extraordinarily" like his own, then added: '"'That is my writing." Lawyer Schramm: Can. you explain how that letter, addressed "F. Jackson, Box, 820, Auckland," comes to be sent to my box? — I think it could be done. !t might have been written anywhere and posted in Waihi. "Yes, posted in Waihi on November 8! Will you explain, how it comes to Their Friendship my letter-box in Auckland when you swore you never saw Jackson before in your life?" Edwards (biting his lip and fumbling with his hands): "I cannot ex- ' plain it. It is a most extraordinary thing!" His Honor: "Why write to Jackson, if Jackson was in Waihi?" Lawyer Schramm explained that Jackson had asked Edwards to address an envelope for him, because he wanted to obtain a sample of his handwriting. Edwards declared that he had no recollection of addressing the envelope at all. Lawyer Schramm: Have you ever been out arm-in-arm with Mr3. Harley? — Never to my knowledge. Counsel (Impatiently): Well, have you ever?— Never. . Edwards further denied that he had ever been in one bed on the verandah' and Mrs. Harley in another, with only a small table between them. "If Mrs. Harley was there, I don't think I should have been," he added. Lawyer Schramm: Where did you sleep on the night of November 7, what room? — In the room on the righthand side . . . Oh; wait a minute! Edwards then corrected this statement and said he .slept in the back room. Lawyer Sohrammt Are you sure? — I think X am oertain. He thought he was In Mrs. Harley's room on the ' night of the raid. This waa the second room oh the right. Mrs. Harley and Edwards had been on terms of "quite good friendship." If she were in any room in the house and he wanted her, he would knock on the door and go in to her. Lawyer Sohramm: Were you ever in her room with your coat off and sitting on her bed?— l think I have been. Well, what were you doing there, while she was in bed ?— Probably talking to her. ' ■ : Mrs. Harley has sworn that you were Couldn't Remember not the man who was cited as the- corespondent. Did you know any other Edwards who gtayed there?— l think probably Mrs. Harley would know more about that. Edwards added that he was not in Waihi in January, February, March or April. He did not sleep in the house in Rosemont Road one night in four mdnths. He admitted that he had fought with Zanimovich at Waihi after the case was adjourned the previous week in Auckland. "He struck me with a pot of beer," Edwards added. "I asked him why he should come here and swear an innocent woman's life away — and my honor." The reason he was Interviewed by the police the second time was because he had gone to the station, as Mrs. Harley was annoyed that the police should have "got on to him" for doing what he considered the right thing. . Lawyer Schramm: Were you questioned about your means of livelihood? —I don't remember that. ; Edwards could not recollect if he had told the police he was in partnership with Mrs. Harley in the boardinghouse, but he might have said so. Constable Rimmer was present when he was interviewed. Lawyer Schramm next took the core, to the blackberry field. Had he ever been out blackberrying with Mrs. Harley? To which he replied that he could not remember. There was one occasion when he met Mrs. Harley at Hamilton, but they had stayed the night at separate places. Re-examined by counsel, Edwards said the extent of his faml-
ffliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiira liarity with Mrs. Harley was to call her "Mum." Constable Arnold R. Rimmer, of Waihi, was called by Lawyer Schramm respecting' the two police Interviews with Edwards; He had detained the co-re. at>. the police station on one occasion. He asked him what he was doing for a living: and was told by Edwards that he was in partnership with Mrs. Harley in her hoarding-house in Rosemont , Road. Mr 8. Harley later verified this statement. Edwards arrived in Waihi in. 1926 or early in 1926, said witnesß. The constable had found him work, but he did, not remain on the job long and witnMi later heard he had been dismissed. From that time onwards Rimmer had never known Edwards to do worl^ of any description. His honor expressed the opinion that the petitioner's ' case was "pretty weak" when Lawyer Lilly rose to ad- . . dress the court. ; Summing up, Judge Blair said the case was a peculiar one. It might al- ■ most be said that it was unfairly drawn, because the case, as opened by petitioner, was that there had been a long period of improper relations be-; ■--. tween the respondent and co-respond-ent. ' .■'.':•... ' .;' The evidence, as given by petitioner himself, was obviously breathing a cer- : tain 'amount of venom against his;: wife. •_.■■'■- '.. ■;.;. The imputation was that - the .co-V respondent had been Hying in Waiht, ; ~; that all he did was to drink beer and live in the house, misconducting himself with Mrs. Harley. v "- An examination of the evidence showed at once that no real effort had Son's Testimonial been made to support the allegations of misconduct by direct evidence. The charge was general misconduct over a period of 14 months an'd the evidence given did not support the allega-< tion. i '-'.■' The fact must not be overlooked, his honor continued, that this unfortunate woman obtained a separation from' her husband and was inadequately maintained; she had, therefore, to resort to some means of livelihood. " She took in boarders . .'. . and, "this man, Edwards, was one of them." Had there been no boarders in , the ; house, the fact that Edwards had been. living there might have conveyed a"very sinister impression." ■ "But," said his honor, '"when . petitioner forced his. wife, through inadequately maintaining her, it does not lie in his power to complain if she kept boarders on a. . comparatively small income— -or to make suggestions of misoonduot against any boarder who stayed there more, frequently than an* other;" • The evidence of the son, who would no doubt be jealous of his mother's reputation and who had been brought to court by his father to try to blacken her character, was clear. He had griven her a testimonial; : It was for the petitioner to establish misconduct beyond reasonable doubt* but the evidence had failed to do so. The petition was dismissed. Lawyer Lilly asked for costs on the highest scale, to which Lawyer Schramm objected, pointing out that , there had been 'two or three adjournments. ' ■ . Judge Blair said it seemed to him that petitioner was trying to starve his wife. He could .' not understand Harley putting into his petition, the allegation concerning' his son. "Why did he want to mention it?" / asked his honor sharply. "It shows the type of man he la. It was vary, very wrong and a cruel thing to do, to . cast a slur on the boy." , , f His wife had used the expression. : "putting the dirt in," and that seemed to describe it. ' r < The judge pointed out that the allegation had been made, notwithstanding the fact that the boy was a legitimate son; his birth certificate disclosed this fact: Costs were allowed on the highest scale. ; The judge also allowed for three extra days at £10 lOtk, ao tne Marine had extended 6vor four full day*. iiiniiiiiniiiiitiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiifmmiiiminimiiiminiiiiiiiinTiitiinimmiiiiiin
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTR19280614.2.41.3
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
NZ Truth, Issue 1176, 14 June 1928, Page 8
Word count
Tapeke kupu
3,954RIDDLE OF WOMAN'S LETTER TO JUDGE NZ Truth, Issue 1176, 14 June 1928, Page 8
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.