CO-RESPONDENT DENIES SERVICE OF PAPERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 365, 28 May 1928, Page 1

CO-RESPONDENT DENIES SERVICE OF PAPERS

JUDGE THINKS OTHERWISE WAIHI DIVORCE CASE An unusual development took place in a divorce case heard in the Supremo Court this morning, when Roderick Willoughby Gore Edwards, cited as co-respondent, alleged that he had never been served with the papers. Mr. Justice Blair eventually held that he had. Henry Harley, of Waihi, petitioned for the dissolution of his marriage with M.rs. Harley on the grounds of alleged adultery with Edwards. The two were married in 1914 at Waihi, Mrs. Harley having been divorced in 1911. Mr. Schramm appeared for petitioner and Mr. Osburne-Lilly for respondent. Describing himself as a salesman, of Hamilton, Edwards said he arrived in New Zealand in May, 1926, from Australia, as a member of the crew of the Anglo-Indian, and left the boat at Auckland. Mr. Schramm: On December 19 you were in the British Hotel and served with papers as co-respondent. You admitted they were for you. Edwards: At that special time I was not in Auckland, and, further, 1 don’t know the British Hotel. 1 have only been in Auckland twice. Mr. Schramm: When did you write o Canada for your certificate of discharge from the forces there? —I don’t see what that has got to do with the case. I can’t tell. A VAGUE ADDRESS What part p f New Zealand were you in when you wrote? —In the North Island. Mr. Schramm: That is very vague. How did you fix your address for the letter as Waihi?—l was staying there. ■.That is the address where Mrs. Harley is now? —Yes. Where have you been since then? — It's no good asking that question. It takes too much to think out. Have you been to Mrs. Harley’s place this year?—l believe I have been there. His Honour: Don’t bother about believing. Be a little more explicit. Edwards: I believe I can safely say I was. His Honour: Never mind about safely” saying. You might be a little more accurate. Replying to Mr. Schramm, Edwards admitted that he boarded at Mrs. Harley’s place in Waihi at various times since 1926. After hearing further argument, his Honour held that Edwards had been served. “GO TO H !” Henry Harley said he had frequently seen co-respondent about with Mrs. Harley in the last two years. He never saw him do any work, except drink beer. Petitioner was separated from his an order having been made in June. 1926. by mutual agreement. He alleged that misconduct occurred between his wife and co-respondent in January, 1927. He engaged a private inquiry agent, and together they made investigations. When he found his ■*'ife under compromising circumstances. and taxed her with misconduct, she said ‘‘Go to H ! ” He identified Edwards. Replying to Mr. Osburne-Lilly, petitioner said he was the father of a child born to respondent in 1909. Petitioner denied that the separation order made between himself and his w ife was on the grounds of persistent and failure to maintain. His Honour commented on the absurdity of the practice of putting down the grounds of complaint in consent orders which were agreed to without the major issue being fought. (Proceeding.)