PETITION IN DIVORCE.

Shannon News, 15 May 1923, Page 3

PETITION IN DIVORCE.

SHANNON RESIDENT CONCERNED. DECREE NISI GRANTED. ~ i At the sitting of the Divorce Co art in Palmerston last .week a ca-se was heard in which James William Young, formerly of Shannon, and. now of Wliakaronga, sought an order against his wife, L. M. E. Young, on the ground of adultery, John Moffltt was cited as co-respondent. In giving evidence, petitioner mentioned the places where the parties had resided since being married. When petitioner was at Christchurch he received a wire in this wife’s name from Gisborne, asking him to come as she was not well. She sent him £5 to cover the cost of the trip, and witness left, but on arrival at Gisborne he waited four days before the arrival of his wife from Auckland. Witness said his father had a hotel at Greymouth. and die took his \vife there, but her conduct, when under the ! influence of liquor, did not please witness's faihef Subsequently, when witness was iat Shannon, respondent wrote saying that she Avas giving nip her business as a milliner at Gisborne, and Avanted some money. Witness sent down. £26, and respondent later arrived at Shannon, Avhere Avitness found accommodation for her, Witness described instances of respondent’s late arrival at home during the elections, and Avhen interrogated' she Avas alleged to have said, “mind your o\\m business.” Later again his wife commenced a tirade of abuse, and even went so far as to say she would employ boys in the street to “give him a hiding.” Witness referred to an instance when he found liis Avife in a room one afternoon with. Moffltt. There Avas an empty beer bottle in the room, and his Avife’s attire was disarranged, and she herself Avas “under the influence” though not drunk.

Herbert Childs, a fl axe utter at Shannon, also gave evidence.

Constable McGregor, stationed tit shannon, gave evidence as to calling at Moffltt's houlse, the door of Avhich Avas opened by Mrs Young. Moffltt’s wife was away, and there Avere other men in tihe house in a more or less inebriated condition. Moffltt explained that he bad engaged a Mrs McConnell to come and look after the children while his Avife was away, and she brought the respondent with her. Mrs McConnell, or the person called by that name, was a woman of questionable reputation. For the; respondent, Mr Innes contended that there had been no evidence of adultery. There may have been a good deal of drinking, but no evidence to prove adultery. His Honour: "I must take all the ciri cumstances into account."

Uaiuira Matilda E. Young, the respondent. in the action, said that when she came to Shannon her husband got her a single room, unfurnished, and 1 aiter left her there, and went to live at another place. Witness said she was accustomed whilst there to going long walks in the dark by herself. To Mr Ongley: When at Moffltt’s place, Avhere she had gone to mind, the children, and but for the shelter of Avhose roof she would have had to sleep out, she had used “old Mrs McConnell’s nightdress.” His Honour: “Why did you not go and get one of your oaati at Child’s p] ace ?”—“You should see the streets of Shannon, sir, they are so dark.” (Laughter). Mr Ongley: “Did you consider the house perfectly respectable Avith all those strange men about.”—‘As far as T Avas concerned, the house was more than respectable.” John Moffltt, described as a hairdresser, said he first met Mrs Young a few days after her arrival at Shannon, AA’hen she called into the saloon to get her hair trimmed. Witness said that subsequently he Avas informed that Mrs Young Avas practically homeless, hut he said he could not accommodate her, though she stayed there that night. Witness had invited some friendship, and they brought a bottle of whisky and also a flask. After Mrs McConnell had complained about the row the men Avere making, «he made them some supper, and later, at about. 2 a,m. Mrs Young put her head round the door and also complained that, she could not sleep for tie commotion. However, ?lie remained for a drink, and then, s’o Avitness understood, Avent back to' bed.

To Mr McGregor: He had been married for seven years and had never had trouble with his wife. Cross-examined by Mr Innes, co-re-spondent said that, on the night of January 2, respondent had complained about, the noise made hv the men ‘about the place.” She was induced by corespondent to have a drink with the men. ■ . To Mr Onglev: He did not know that Mrs Young was in the house un il she came into the room to complain ri-out the noise. She was respectably attired, and he denied that -he was clad only in a. nightdress.

His Honour: I do not want to hear all the squalid details of that We?k; the essential fact is that this woman, being married, Stayed at the hou-e o the co-respondent. His Honour, in summing up. sMd

that a charge of adultery could seldom be proved by direct evidence; it was a matter of inference. Having reviewed the evidence at length His Honour continued: "If a married woman behaves like the respondent has acted in this case, without giving any explanation, the only inference is that the charge is based on sound grounds.” He could not accept respondent’s gxplaation about her long walk® at night ; women did not do such things at all hours of the early morning and there must be some ot/he-r explanation for her conduct. If, in view of the dull character of her life at Shannon, the respondent sought distraction in drink and bad company, it could not altogether be regarded as a matter for surprise. The hOu.se of the co-respond-ent was obviously a rendezvous for undesirable men and women, he added.

His Honour commented on the absence of any satisfactory explanation of his conduct by tJhe co-respondent: the latter’s story Was not acceptable as being all probable. He also liad to consider the fact ihat drinking was going on at this house, and under such circumstances the inference was that the respondent was not, under proper control. "I hold that the charge of adultery

is proved.” added His Honour, “and I ' accordingly grant a decree nisi, to he I made absolute In three months, with costs against the co-respondent.”