DIVORCE REFUSED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 43, 15 February 1912, Page 6

DIVORCE REFUSED.

UNSUCCESSFUL ACTION BY GORE SOLICITOR. THE INDER CASE. The divorce case—William Francis ludor, solicitor, practising at Gore, v. Leah Lillian Indor, his wife, and Arthur Stoddart, the latter being named as co-respondent, but not having filed a defence—was continued at the Auckland Supreme Court lapt Saturday, before his Honor Mr Justice Edwards.

The respondent, Mrs Inder, a quietly but neatly dressed woman of delicate appearance, went into the box and detailed the circumstances of her married life leading up to the final separation of the parties. In referring to the evidence relative to her nsc of morphia, witness declared that several doctors had repeatedly ordered morphia, and it had been absolutely necessary for her to have recourse to tlio use of these drugs. On several occasions petitioner had brought morphia to her. At the time of the Mandovillo incident, referred to in yesterday’s evidence, petitioner had bought her four tabloids of morphia of half a grain eacJi and left them with her, saying that she might want them. '

Examined by Mr Singer concerning petitioner’s behaviour, witness said that she had had reason to complain of her husband’s behaviour with a Mrs Black at Gore. She found two short love letters sent by Mrs Black to petitioner signed, “Your Loving Bet.” In petitioner’s notebook witness also found entries of little commissions which had boon executed by her husband for Mrs Black. These commissions included the purchase of perfumes and other little things. Witness, when she found the Jotters, went to her husband and said she would take divorce proceedings. Petitioner then proceeded to force the loiters nut of her possession, and threatened to break her arm if she did not release them. Notwithstanding the loss of the letters she told him that she could prove that certain things had happened on week-end trips, and that she was determined to proceed with the divorce proceedings. Peti-

tinner then went down on his knees to witness and implored her not to take action. By inis time tnoir lives were utterly unhappy. On one occasion petitioner toid witness that such a woman as she should be locked up in chains. He also said that iie would be glad to get rid of her if it cost £IUUU. Shortly afterwards they agreed to separate, and witness went to Dunedin to live. Petitioner followed her and spent two days with her at Wain’s hotel, sharing the room with her. His story about witness brandishing a rcvovler on the platform of the Dunedin railway station she denied. Later, in Wellington, they stayed at the Grand Hotel, and at Takapau next. Witness came to Auckland, and petitioner arranged for her to go back to Gore for a fortnight. They lived as man and wife again at Gore, but petitioner was worse than ever, and told her that man was a polygamus animal and that she was lucky to have had one man to look after for six or seven years. The end of it was that witness came back to ‘Auckland to.stay‘with her people. Allegations of misconduct with co-respondent while in Auckland the witness absolutely denied.

Cross-examined by Dr. Bamford, witness denied that in 1904 her husband had prepared divorce proceedings because of her conduct with a man named "White. She denied that under tho influence of morphia she hachpne night gone to her husband’s office anti broken a key in endeavouring to open the strong room. r:

J)r Bamford; Did you not then draw a revolver on Mr Cochrane, a member of the staff in your husbands’ office, and compel him to give you his key in exchange for your broken one ?

His Honor: What? Robbery under A-rms ?

Witness: Is Air Cochrane supposed to have done as I bade him under compulsion P—Yes. Witness: Then ho must have been a. coward. She had never been in a butcher’s shop in Dsvonport with Stcddart. What Wilson had said about seeing witness in Airs Collins’s house was absolutely false.

Dr. Eamford: In December 1911 did you not write to your husband as follows: “I trust your Christmas will bo more joyful than mine. Do you fed a nice glow as of virtue rewarded? Do you really think that because of wickedness and wrong-doing I deserve the worry of the last few years? I wonder now who would suffer most if we wore punished as we deserve.” —Yes.

Yon admitted that 3-011 were guilty of wickedness and wrong-doing p—Certainly not. It was surely obvious that 1 was simply writing in a sarcastic and ironic strain.

His Honor: I think the letter is open to that construction.

Levy, mother of the respondent, briefi3" gave evidence. Mi‘ Singer, in addressing the jury, commented on the fact that the petitioner had not the courage to be present in Court that dav„

Dr Eamford took exception to this statement, and said it was on his recommendation that petitioner had not attended the Court. His Honor said ho did not think a man could’lie called a coward for sta3 - - ing away when he knew that by attending he would have to sit quiet and hear counsel say a lot of unpleasant things about him.

The jury after a couple of hours' retirement, returned a verdict that respondent had not committed adulery with co-respondent, and the petition was refused, costs on the highest scale being entered up against petitioner. ,A certificate was also granted for fifteen guineas allowance for the second day’s trial.