DIVORCE SUIT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 682, 7 November 1933, Page 6

DIVORCE SUIT

DAMAGES SOUGHT LICENSEE OF WHAKATANEHOTEL CITED AS CORESPONDENT CLAIM FOR £1500 Auckland, Monday. Alleging adultery against his wife on different occasions at the Taneatua and Whakatane Hotels, Francis Charles Oldershaw, described as a theatre manager, brought an action for divorce against his wife, Winifred Mary Oldershaw at the Supreme Court this morning. Alfred Hayter, licensee oi* the Whakatane Hotel, is cited as the co-respondent, and from him the petitioner claims £1500 damages. The action is being heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury of twelve, petitioner being represented by Mr. Hugh Haigh, respondent by Mr. Singer, and the co-respondent by Mr. Terry. The defence is. a complete denial of the allegations made by the petitioner. In outlining the case for the petitioner, Mr. Haigh said evidence would be called from which he submitted the jury would be entitled to infer that misconduct took place between Mrs. Oldershaw and Hayter at both the Taneatua and Whakatane Hotels. Petitioner said he was married to respondent on November 30, 1925, at which time he was living at Wanganui, and his wife was in Hawera, where she had a business. His usual occupation was that of theatre manager, but in August, 1926, he took over the lease of the Bridge Hotel at Waitara. His wife then joined him and she had charge of the house, petitioner looking after the bars. In April, 1929, he had to give_ up the hotel, and his wife went to live with her mother. He came to Auckland, where he obtained a position and since then he had continued to reside in Auckland. Went on Relief In 1932 petitioner said he was out of employment practically all the time and until he went into a relief camp in September he had only averaged from 18s to.£l a week. He would eome to town at week-ends and visit his wife, who then had an apartment house in Parnell. It was in September, 1932, that he went to the relief camp at Coatesville and at the beginning of October his wife went to Taneatua to work at the Taneatua Hotel. She said she got the position through an old friend of the family. Their daughter, born in November, 1927, said petitioner, was placed in a convent before the respondent went away, and at the commencement petitioner paid £1 a week for her board. After respondent went to Taneatua she wrote every week until December 5, 1932. After a time she sent him 10s a week to assist him to pay for the daughter in the convent. After the letter on December 5 last year the letters from respondent ceased. He and respondent had always lived happily together until the relations "started to butt in." The only rows they had were over relatives. His wife was one of the best of housekeepers and loved the daughter. Meeting With Hayter Beca.use of information he had received petitioner went to the Royal Hotel, Auckland, on Friday, June 2, and saw Hayter. When petitioner in'troduced himself Hayter seemcd a bit shy and asked petitioner out into the passage. Petitioner accused Hayter of carrying on and kissing petitioner's wife, which Hayter denied. Hayter suggested & round tafble conference at a solicitor's office. Two or three days later he again saw Hayter at the Royal Hotel. A man naimd Joe Hyman was with Hayter, and the latter said, "Now make the accusations you made the other night." Petitioner told him to go away, and Hayter said petitioner was "only a big mug," and that he could not do anything as he had no ononey. On August I and the following day petitioner had interviews with Mr. Singer, who mentioned that petitioner should allow his wife t0 divorce him. Petitioner asked, "What for?" and the reply was "On the grounds of desertion." "I said it seemed like giving my wife away in cold blood," said petitioner. Mr. Haigh: You are claiming substantial damages against Hayter?— I most certainly do. Why? — I consider that he broke up my married life. My wife was a good woman and a good mate to me. I don't think money could buy my wife. Mr. Singer: You were married before? — iYes, at the age of 17. In New Zealand? — Yes. What was the result of that marriage? — My wife divorccd me. On what grounds?— il don't know. It was either on that new law of three years' separation, or restitution of conjugal rights. I don't know. In, answer to further questions, petitioner admitted that most of the work he did after his marriage to respondent was as a barman. He had been in South America, where he had managed picture theatres, and he described himself as a theatre manager because he knew more about that business than he did about hotel bars, Wedding Expenses Mr. Singer: When you married respondent she was a widow? — Yes. You had no money at the time of your marriage? — No. Your wife had to pay for the wedding? — I don't think so. She paid ihe expenses of the wedding?— iShe paid her own expens.s and bought some champagne. And she also bought the wedding ring?— |I don't know that she did. I would say she didn't. Petitioner said he offered his wife money on se.veral occasions just after they were married, but she would not take it. She said she had a good business in Hawera. It was when he took over the Bridge Hotel at Waitara in July, 1926, that she sold h:r business at Hawera. It was not true that up to the time they went to Waitara he had not offered his wife any money, nor was it correct to say he had not bought her clothes. Suggestions Denied It was not true that after taking over the hotel at Waitara h'e commenced to drink heavily. It was then that he and his wife first lived to-

gether. It was untrue that he had knocked his wife down prior to the birth of the child, and he had never threatened to cut her throat. Mr. Singer. Would you say your , wife is an untruthful woman? — (No, I don't think she is. Would she tell lies about you? — (I don't think so. Did you at Waitara accuse your wife of immorality with a man? — No he used to be an old sweetheart of hers. Th'at w,as long before I knew her. Continuing, petitioner said he did not drink to excess, and he was not a drunkard. It was true that he had gone to a solicitor and had an agreement for sfeparation drawn up. That was in February, 1930. (The case is proceeding.)