UNFAITHFUL HUSBAND

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 529, 5 December 1928, Page 6

UNFAITHFUL HUSBAND

WIFE GRANTED SEPARATION WHAT GRAMOPHONE SAID Confronted with conclusive evidence of his adultery, Norman George Williams, who had determined to fight the petition of Mary Josephine Patricia Williams for judicial separation brought before Mr. Justice Frazer in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, decided to withdraw his answer. The Court therefore made an order in the wife’s favour. In evidence, petitioner said she was married to respondent in May, 1920, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Auckland. From the start the union was not a happy Witness had left him three times owins to his drinking habits, which had earned for him a reprimand from the Telegraph Department. Although witness had lived in 15 houses, respondent had never made a home for her. Her husband used frequently to stay out late at night, and on the evening of July 25 witness, with a private inquiry agent and another man. observed accused committing misconduct. When witness taxed the co-respon-dent, the woman said: “Oh, you dirty sneak!” To His Honour: Neither the woman nor my husband denied misconduct, nor offered an explanation. Cross-examined, witness said she wat not sorry to lose her husband now that she had found out about the adultery. His Honour: If this had not happened. would you have been sorry to lose him?—Yes. SAFEGUARDING HERSELF Asked why she had initiated the present proceedings instead of applying for a deed of separation, petitioner said her husband was prone to make fragile promises, and she wished to safeguard herself and child as regards maintenance. To Mr. Moody witness said she was glad she had found out about her husband after trusting him so long. She admitted singing and playing the gramophone the next morning. Mr. Moody: What was the record Petitioner: It was called, “She Knows It and Bo Do I.” (Laughter.) After corroborative evidence of the misconduct had been given, Mr. Moody asked leave for a short adjournment. Counsel later announced that after hearing that evidence he felt he must withdraw his answer. “I think that is the proper course,” remarked his Honour. In making a separation order, his Honour fixed 30s a week as a reasonable sum for respondent to pay as maintenance. Williams would l>e"permitted access to the child once a week.