“To Wash Laundry”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 282, 18 February 1928, Page 1

“To Wash Laundry”

COMMENT ON DIVORCE ACTION COMPLICATED PROCEEDINGS “It teems that both parties in tbis case want to ba divorced from •ach other, and that their only reason for coming to this Court is to do a certain amount of laundry work." The abovd remark, made by Mr. Justice Reed at the Supreme Court yesterday, was in reference to divorce proceedings brought by Inez Dickens (Mr. Northcroft) against Leonard Maynai Dickens (Mr. Dickson). A cross BBtition was lodged by Dickens citing Leonard Briggs (Mr. Gatenby) and Tony Sorich as co-respondents. The couple were married in 1922 and there was one child of the marriage. In her evidence petitioner said that about two years ago they went to live at Brown’s Bay, and their lives were not happy. Petitioner complained about her husband's conduct with a Miss Aileen Nyberg, and he locked her out of her home. Petitioner was submitted to a lengthy cross-examination, and in this she said she had gone to Sorich’s home because Mrs. Sorich was in hospital and there was no one to look after the five children. To Mr. Dickson: It was witness who suggested she should go to the house. She absolutely denied misconduct with Sorich. The alleged offence was supposed to have taken place in a boardinghouse in the city. She had to stayone night in town. It was Sorich who told her ot the place. Witness thought he had a room there too, but he did not come near her.

Referring to Briggs, witness said they were friendly. She told him of the trouble with her husband, and in time he used to visit her at her mother’s house. Finally he became her accepted lover, although nothing could come of it until a divorce was obtained. There was not the slightest truth in the allegations that there had ever been misconduct with Briggs. Witness admitted that she was particularly friendly with Briggs. She admitted having written him a few letters in very endearing terms. The two letters, read by counsel, were described by the witness as being the nicest. She had destroyed the others. His Honour: How did you come to let those letters get into your husband’s hands?—He came into my room one night and took them out of my bag. Witness could not remember throwing pepper in her husband’s eyes, and it was not a fact that Miss Nyberg was looking after the child because she was coming home on the last bus each night.

Witness also denied having taken » bite out of the leg of her husband a trousers. Mr. Dickson: Did you ever sit on Sorich’s knee?—Yes, but it was bea'isa. t}iere was a crowd at the table, there was not much room. 1 ca H evidence to show that you weg§ continually kissing Sasich will you ®eny »?—I will. I have nev%r kissed

V°u not intending to go away of it Sor * ch? — No » although he spoke

n °t the woman at the boarding use say she was ashamed of you “Jon asked for a double room with —She did not, and I did not ask lO L* double room. lrs - Sorich ever remonstrate An/i y j U and call y° u a certain name trtv. or< * er y° u out when she returned home?—She did not. I am tnendly with her. 1 this stage the proceedings were adjourned till Monday.