PATERSON DIVORCE CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 98, 29 August 1913, Page 7

PATERSON DIVORCE CASE.

RESPONDENT'S EXPLANAI'ION Auckland, August 28. The heaving of the"suit for dirorcbrought by William Henry Patterson against his wife iJabel Kathleen Pai tcrson and (iuslav Kronfeld, was continued'nt the Supreme Court. Counsel in sketching the story o respondent's life in the house, said that she begged her husband pver and over again to give her an allowance. Petitioner, he said, was a man o! means. Counsel was instructed thai lu» was worth probably £3OOO. Re spondent also repeatedly begged peti tioner, said Mr Reed, to let her hav> a servant. He replied, however: "Who is to pay For one:-'" "So the husband kept his young wife in that house alone," said Mr Reed, "doing all the work in it herself and depriving her of what most husbands would gladly have given their wives—a woman to slay in the house with her. II what is alleged to have happened had occurred at all, I say without tin slightest hesitation," declared counsel, "that petitioner richly deserve;! it. But it did not occur." Respondent's story of what took place in the bouse on the night of June 28 wa* outlined by Mr Reed and substantial; ed by Mrs Patterson in the witnessbox'. According to her statement, respondent on returning from the thea

t;o entered the house and switcher on the light in the hall. She lit no other light. She then opened tinfront door and whilst standing at the door, Kronfeld came along. Respondent stated that she had only knowr him about a fortnight or three weeks. When Kronfeld stopped at the gate as stated, lie is said to have remarked that -Mrs Patterson was up late whereupon she said she was going tr retire as soon as she had fed the pony. Kronfeld pressed her to lot him com< and help her feed (he pony, and set that everything was safe. She then said "very well." Ho then came through the house. They walked downstairs, Switching on the light? as they proceeded and went out intc the yard and respondent fed the pony. Mrs Patterson was stated to have pointed out to Kronfeld a short cut through the hack and over the diviun;; wall to his father's house. Respon lent swore that she then parted Iron. co-respondent and re-entered tinbouse. ■ Respondent stated'that she agisted her husband and brother to scorch the house, and that she her kilt switched on all the lights'as the? preceded from' room to room.i Roshdent furthefll Oeclaictfce that' 1 -she endeavored then to explain to pot'!' tinker [what nJ&lfy l had happened) brtf he woujld not listen to her, thathewa? acuri'g imadfynah&fl«alled out,'"l .sa« i man get out of the window and on to tho balcony and jump oyer." She also swore that -after JohnPattersor !iad gone out he returned by the front door, and she saw him unlock the door at the top of the washh.onse stairs and heard him unlock the back door o; the flodr belota]'pri'O'Mo calling 1 reßp'or. dent, i' ■ rn; sjjn ■ i '> 10 (Aw

Mr Reed refeWco 1 ' to the''Wld'eifc ru co-respondent taken on c'ommissio

in Sydney. Ho stated thnt'the co-res' pondent on going through the wash

house door took care to see that tiK' window in the wnshhouse Svas let* >pon, of course with'Ottt'the tcilowiedec of Mrs Patterson. Kronfold's evidence went on to say tliat when resfcohde; went upstairs after feeding the pony she locked the door. He wait'ed but -i'M in the yard for some time am tin ;\ opened the washhouse windov and got inside. He was about to /:• up-tairs when he heard a noise at th; fret door. Tie then got out of th' \v.:s'iiliouso window again as quick!; ife he could. Respondent had not ii

my way consented to bis returning b th" house oiM'emaining in it, nor wv she aware that ho intended to -v rum. He had never been alone wifcl" respondent in a room at any time, no' had there ever been any familiarity between them. His object in return mg was t- J '•" "V' l persuade her t<

permit sucn tanuliarlty. , I" urther statements in the evidenC' of Kronfeld included a denial that h< had asked to be shot when lie was can t'ured. His version <vas that his cap tors came to him and said, "if yoi ]o not stand still we will shoot." Co respondent told the men in the hous< that Mrs Patterson was innocent, and i'liat he had no reason to believe tha" she was other than a woman of honour. Ho felt that his action had indieted a very great wrong on respon dent, and placed her in a wrong position.

Mrs Rose proprietress o the Bella Vista boarding-house, wa, the next witness. She slated the. on the evening of .June 27, respoiidoti

was in the kitchen of witness's hous< from ahy.il u.oO n ru. until about V

p.m. Cross-examfned, witness said that il was nut trim that'.respondent camr iuco the hoarding-houso at 6.20 p.m. Klh'ii Si nuns, mother of the respondent, related how petitioner came to h;v house aiter the happenings in Watertoo Quadrant in the early morning oi Juno 23, and told her that lie hat! car.ght a man in his house. Witnes<protested later in the day about petitioner's action in turning her daughter out .in the night. She did not knew :h< ii that respondent bad returned to he house and slept in the downstairs

Cross-examined, witness said thai .-. vitioner had treated respondent very ivell, and had always been considerate ::id kind to herself. Respondent's (a e ;>;;ig elosed, the Court adjourned un'l 10.30 a.m.