RICHARDSON DIVORCE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 611, 16 August 1933, Page 5

RICHARDSON DIVORCE

(Press Assn. —

case proceeding * respondent subjected to lengthy crossexamination ALLEGATIONS DENIED

By Telegraph — Copyright).

Auckland, Tuesday. The Richardson divorce action was continued in the Supreme Court today. The respo'ndent, Mona Richardson, was subjected to further crossexamination by Mr. Weston, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Weston: In connection with the breach of promise action before your marriage? There was no action. It was never intended to take the matter to court. ■ On your instruetions your solicitor issued a writ on July 9, 1925? — I don't know. In the writ you claimed £2000? — ■ That is not true. All I wanted was the expenses I had gone to in providing my trousseau. The matter was settled in November, 1925, and you got £350? — Yes. That did include expenses? — I don't know. I got £350. Now, at Te Paki, did you believe your husband was consorting with Maori women? — Yes, I believe so. And do you still believe it? — Yes, I do. I might say, Mr. Weston, that if Mrs. Whitten (the lady help at Te Paki) was in New Zealand to-day my husband would never have done what he has done. Away All Night Mr. Weston: What were you and your brother doing camping on the Ninety Mile Beach from March 11 to Mareh 18? — I went up to try and make it up with my husband after Mr. Russell left the station. One night he was away all night and next day. Didn't you go up with the object of catching your husband? — No. Why did you stay at the Waipapakauri Hotel on the night of March 18? — We had taken down a tent and paclced everything up to come to Auckland, because we had to get off the beach. We stayed at the hotel because otherwise we would have had to pitch tbe tent again. It was pure accident that you went to the hotel? — yes. If my husband

had listened to my pleadings I would not have gone to the hotel. It Was Pure Accident And it was pure accident that Mr. Jenkins happened to be at the hotel that night? — Yes. It was an accident that you stopped a night at the hotel at Rangia- , hua — Yes. And it was an accident that Jenkins : should he there too? — Yes, I suppose so. When you, your brother, and Jen- I kins were in your room at the Wai- ; papakauri Hotel what were you talk- j ing about? We spoke about the dif- j ference I had had with my husband. 1 Was that the first time you had ; confided in Jenkins? — Yes. j Did you tell him the whole story of | your domestic differences? — No. Did you tell him about the private detective? — No. Who paid for your board? — My brother. He carried the money. I only had a few shillings. Thode says Mr. Jenkins paid for your board? — I don't believe anything Thode says. "He is Telling a Lie" Why? — Because-'he is telling a lie. Can you suggest" any motive why Thode should come here and say something which is untrue? — No. That is Mr. S'inger's business. Thode had said Jenkins arrived at the hotel after us, which is untrue. Can yo'u suggest why Morrison should come here and say something which you say is untrue? — Morrison was annoyed with Mr. Jenkins. Morrison has said many things which are untrue. "Since Richardson brought this action all Auckland has known about the trip," said respondent. "It is easy to say things now. My brother knew everything that had happened, and he was cohstantly with Jenkins. My elder brother lunches with him practically every day." Respondent was re-examined by Mr. Singer, who said : You have been asked a lot of questions about your husband's conduct. Did you see your husband last Saturday afternoon? Respondent: Yes, about 12:50. I wa's in car with my two brothers going towards the vehicular f erry. Husband With Miss Kember Where was your husband? — He was walking along towards the vehicular ferry. Was he with anybody — Yes, with Miss Kembei*. How were they walking? — He had his arm around her waist. (Proceeding) .