Sordid Allegations

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 281, 17 February 1928, Page 13

Sordid Allegations

BROWN’S BAY DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS STORY OF A RAID Sordid allegations regarding the conduct of her husband at his residence at Brown’s Bay were made by the petitioner in divorce proceedings brought before Mr. Justice Reed at the Supreme Court this morning. The petitioner was Inez Dickens (Mr E. H. Northcroft), and the respondent, Leonard- Maynard Dickens (Mr. J. F. W. Dickson), but a cross-petition was entered by the husband citing Leonard Briggs (Mr. Gatenby), and Tony Sorich as co-respondents. For the petitioner, Mr. Northcroft said the case was a sordid and unpleasant matrimonial difficulty. The couple had been married when quite young, the husband being 23 and the wife 20. They were married in 1922 and there was one child of the marriage. Dickens was a bus-driver who ran a service between Brown’s Bay and the North Shore. About March or i April of 1926 Dickens semed anxious to associate himself more closely with a Miss Aileen Nyberg, of Brown’s Bay, than was possible with his wife In the house. Accordingly, and without any justification, he turned his wife out of the cottage and locked up the place. The petitioner obtained the services of a friend, a Mr. Lusty, to open the door, and while doing so. Dickens returned and instructed Mr. Lusty to stop it. “Dickens then proceeded to live openly in his home with Miss Nyberg," said counsel. In the cottage there was also a Mr. Lynch and a man named Kane. It was then decided to raid the cottage. Mr. Lynch, husband of the woman living with Kane, arranged the raid, which was made by a private detective, Lynch, Mrs. Dickens and some friends. When they broke into the cottage they found sufficient evidence to prove that their suspicions were correct. Following on this Lynch brought divorce proceedings against his wife and obtained his freedom. It was now found that Dickens had decided to accuse his wife of misconduct with two men, the offences being alleged to have taken place in 1926 and 1927. Counsel pointed out that Mrs. Dickens had merely stayed in the home of Sorich to look after his five children because his wife was in hospital. As far as Briggs was concerned it would be admitted that he and Mrs. Dickens were. sweethearts, but it would be denied that any misconduct had ever taken place. Evidence of the raid was given by John Harold Lynch. Cross-examined, witness said they had waited until the lights went out before making the raid. He denied that he had taken Mrs. Dickens home from dances. He admitted taking her to the pictures on one occasion. Esme Margaret Jury, employed at a boardinghouse in the city, said she had been employed at a boardinghouse in Brown’s Bay early last year. As far as she could remember the girl Nyberg came to stay at the house first, and then Dickens. They were living in the same room at the boardinghouse. In evidence the petitioner said she was married in October, 1922. Two 1 years ago she went with her husband to live at Brown’s Bay. She did not get on well with her husband then, because he would come home late at night, and was frequently with Miss Nyberg. She spoke to him about it, but things went on the same way, culminating in the incident in which Mr. Lusty was called in. After serving divorce proceedings her husband made several attempts to persuade her to return to him. ( Proceed ii\g.>