RICHARDSON DIVORCE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 612, 17 August 1933, Page 5

RICHARDSON DIVORCE

(Press Assn.—

another stage co-respondent denies - misconduct at i any time not a "grass widower"

-By Telegraph— Copyright),

Auckland, Wednesday. The action for divorce brought 'by KennCth Rahiri George Richardson, of Auckland, against Mona Mary Richardsoft was Continued to-day." Pe-' titioher alleges misconduet on the part of respondent, and claims £1000 as damages from Harry Reginald Jenkitts, company director, Auckland,' who is cited as co-respondent. • The co-respondent, H. R. Jenkins, continuing his evidence, said he and Morrison left Te Paki station in the afternoon about 3.30, after a night spent at the Waipapakauri Hotel, because it was necessary to leave when the tide was favourable. The.y arrived at the Rangiahua Hotel about 8 o'clock that evening. Mrs. Richardson and her brother, with others, were sitting in the commercial room. - Counsel, Mr. A. H. Johnston©: Were you in Mrs, Richardson's room a h' the Rangiahua Hotel? — Not ;at any time. Some arrangement was made that you should drive Mrs. Richardson home and that Morrison should go home with Otway? — Yes. Why? — Mrs. Richardson was tired and had had a lot of hard driving. Trips on a Launch Witness said the.y arrived at Devonport about six o'clock and had tea at Mrs. Richardson's mother's place, and 'witness then left. Witness said he was endeavouring to sell the car llS"had used on the trip, and event.uqily traded it in with a firm for a "baby" car. The latter was later sold to Mrs. Richardson, senior, for £50., It was true that respondent had gone for several trips on his launch, Jhe" Shenandoah. Her brother, Ted Otway, was a member of the crew, ancl went on all the trips. Never at any time was witness . out in the launch with rs. Richardson alone Very often if no party had been arfanged, witness would invite Mrs. Richardson to bring her people out. Witness strenuously denied misconduet with Mrs. Richardson at Waipapakauri, adding, "Nor at any , other time. I am not an immoral man." Witness said the land purchased at Kerikeri was to be divided into four lots. Mrs. Richardson and her brother were to have one each, and witness and his brother Stanley one eqch. However, his brother had lost his money in the slump, and witness. had taken a larger holding than he intended. Morrison was engaged in April, 1932, following Richardson's resignation, and was given one month's notice of dismissal in Jantiary. Morrison afterwards sued the comjaany for the money he alleged was owing to him. The company refused to pay, and the matter had not yet been decided by the Court. A Statement Denied Mr. Johnstone, counsel for Jen.lcins (not respondent's counsel) : Did you tell Morrison that if he kept his nose out of your affairs with Mrs. Richardson you would settle, or use words to that effect? — No What I said to him was this, "Don't talk to me ahout Richardson. He worked thero to the best of his ahility.- He made bricks without straw. Richardson left as a gentleman." Witness went on to say that through Morrison the company had lost £600 worth of dead stock. Witness resigned his position as chairman of direetors on June 4. - Knew Nothing of Detective In cross-examination by Mr. Singer (counsel for respondent), Jenkins said he did not see Mrs. Richardson after being introdueed to her in January or February, 1931, until he wf.nt to Te Paki in May. He knew nothing of a private detective going up with Mrs. Richardson and her brother until he heard of it afterwards. Cross-examined by Mr. Weston (for petitioner) : Will you agree with me that the keynote of the case is that at Christmas, 1931, you took your own wife and family for a trip, and that in 1932 you took Mrs. Richardson's family? — No, it is not. Counsel: You don't agree that in twelve months your wife and family were supplanted by Mrs. Richardson? — No. You were shocked by the letters oflMiss Kember? — Yes. Would it be that you are old-fash-ioned? — I prefer to he old-fashioned that way. Are you aware that an attractive young married woman is a source of danger? — Not to me. She would beYegarded as an electrie wire and anybody giving her attention would be liable to get hurt? — Not to me. You were a grass widower, were you not? — I know what you infer, It is not true. Mrs. Jenkins and I have always been on the best of terms. (Proceeding) .