FRIENDLY, BUT PARTED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 360, 22 May 1928, Page 13

FRIENDLY, BUT PARTED

HUSBAND SUES FOR DIVORCE VISIT TO WIFE’S HOME On the grounds of adultery, Ralph Gordon Player, builder, of Auckland (Mr. F. D. McLiver), , petitioned for a dissolut on of His 1 marriage with Elizabeth Frieda Wilhelmina Player (Mr. R. Singer) before Mr. Justice MacGregor and a jury of 12 at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. McLiver said that the parties ! W ere married on December 23, 1913. fora while, they Jived at Hamilton and then came to Auckland. “Up till October last we lived together happily said petitioner. Then m v wife, for some unknown reason, i left the house. He tried to get his wife to return to him. but she refused and went to live at a house in Volcanic Head at Mount j petitioner said he* was still on friendly ' terms with his wife, however, and was j paving her .C2 a week, and was also I doing some work at the house for her. j On Saturday. January 14. ho asked his j wife if it would be convenient to come | round that evening to measure up some 1 concreting work. She told him that j die would not be home that evening, but to come on Sunday morning. UNDER THE HOUSE However, the contractor with whom j he arranged to do the work, could not I <fo on Sunday so petitioner and he decided to go that evening. When they ' arrived at about 8.15 p.m. the house was in darkness. They had proceeded about their work when they heard someone moving about inside, >' and to investigate they got under the house. While there they heard someone come up the path and knock at the backdoor. The newcomer was a man, and petitioner could recognise his wife’s voice. Petitioner then went to the front of the house and looked through the sitting-room window. Pie saw his wife and a man lying on the couch. He j beckoned to his friend and he also | looked through the window. His wife ; was in night attire. Petitioner knocked at the door and the man went away. His wife got dressed and went out !; ter returning with two policemen, j One of the policemen told him he had no right on his wife's property as there was a separation order against him. I-Ie told them that there was a mutual agreement. To Mr. Singer: It was not a fact that their life had been a happy one during the past three years. He did not know- that at one time his wfe had consulted counsel regarding a separation order on the grounds of drunkenness. Once he had told his wife that as she was always going away she could stay away. He also remembered the occasion when some apple sauce was thrown on the wall. It was not a fact that he got drunk and abused her. Corroborative evidence was given by Arthur Southgate, the contractor, who accompanied the previous witness on the evening in question. Respondent stated that her married ’ life had not been happy. Her husband j came home late and was often drunk, > and this was the cause of many disagreements. Mr. Singer: Did he often express re- ! pentance? Witness: Yes; particularly in the j mornings. (Proceeding.)