HIS WIFE AND HIS FARM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 777, 25 September 1929, Page 11

HIS WIFE AND HIS FARM

Remarkable Divorce Action SETTLER’S DEAL WITH NEIGHBOUR

AKEMAKKABL-E story of neighbouring farmers of ’ suggestions of the transfer of was related to Mr. Justice Smi

John Percival Smith sought dissolution of his marriage with Beatrice Smith on grounds of adultery. Joseph Archibald McClean, a prominent farmer, was cited as co-respondent. The petition was supported by Mr. Inder, and Mr. East and Mr. Meredith appeared for the co-respondent to oppose the petition. Mr. Inder explained that • McClean was living on a property with his parents about half a mile from Smith’s farm. Besides farming, Smith was employed as a woodman by the county council, and was frequently absent from home.

Nothing was suspected of McClean until December last year, when Mrs. Smith confessed her condition and declared McClean was responsible and was also the father of a girl who had been born earlier that year. McClean admitted misbehaviour and said that he had been contributing to the maintenance of one of the children. Admissions of adultery were later made in writing by Mrs. Smith and McClean. An agreement was entered into by McClean to purchase petitioner’s farm, and to maintain the two children. Petitioner meantime was to support his wife until the pending divorce proceedings took place, so long as she led a chaste life. Apparently McClean had changed his mind meantime about marrying Mrs. Smith after she was divorced as arranged. Mr. Meredith said that the co-re-spondent alleged condonation, connivance and collusion.

Mr. Inder added that until about a fortnight ago McClean had continued to visit Mrs. Smith, pay her maintenance secretly, and to continue their relationship. ON FRIENDLY TERMS ,

At the time of his marriage on January 22, 1913, he was 35 years of age and his wife 24, said petitioner in evidence. They lived together in Auckland and had one boy, now aged 14. In February! last year a girl was born. McClean was on friendly terms with his family, and had been a visitor to the house for eight years. During the past three years of this period, petitioner and his wife had occupied different rooms. He had no, indication of his wife’s misbehaviour until December last when she confessed her condition and asserted that McClean was the father of the child, and also of the girl born earlier •t the year. On taxing McClean with adultery

/ith Mrs. Smith, co-respondent admitted his actions, and said he would do all that was necessary, “I could not say too much then,” added witness.

The arrangements made were confirmed in written documents, in accordance with which McClean purchased witness’s farm, but until July last, when witness left the property, Mrs. Smith lived in the house. Under cross-examination, witness said he had not seen his wife and McClean together since the divorce proceedings were started. He admitted that any money his wife received was paid to her by him. The McClean family was regarded as wealthy, the co-respondent being the only son. DOCTOR’S BILLS PAID

After the girl was born in February last year, the doctor’s and nurse’s bills were not paid by him, but by McClean, though witness declared that he was not aware of the fact until December last. He admitted having asked McClean to purchase the farm, and whether co-respondent would marry Mrs. Smith when she was divorced, McClean undertaking to do so. Mr. Meredith: A sort of walk-ill, walk-out arrangement?—lt turned out that way. McClean was to buy the farm, take over the children, the stock and the wife?—Yes. Mrs. Smith was agreeable?—l don’t know. But she raised no objection to being handed over with the property?—No. The following day, said witness, Mrs. Smith accompanied McClean to Auckland to have the child’s name altered from Smith to McClean. A few days later ne met McClean in Auckland and completed the agreement in a solicitor’s office. It was arranged that McClean was to pay the costs of the divorce proceedings, which were to be undefended and to cost about £SO. After July, when McClean took possession of witness’s property, witness saw McClean’s mother, who invited him to withdraw the proceedings. NOT SUFFICIENT He admitted the sum of £BOO was mentioned by Mrs. McClean, but denied it was to induce him to not

i matrimonial tangle between Aaiwaka, in which there were a wife in a deal over a farm, h in the Supreme Court today.

proceed with the suit. He denied saying he would consult his wife, as she might prefer to have Archie (McClean). He agreed he had remarked that McClean had had enough rope to hang himself. An offer of £I,OOO had been made to him to withdraw the proceedings, but witness did not consider this sufficient.

Mr. Meredith: Didn’t you say you were getting old and you wanted something for your old age?—Yes. What price did you suggest to Mrs. McClean as fair? —I did not put any figure up.

Didn’t you tell her £2,000 was fair? —No.

He agreed he had suggested to McClean to discuss the £I,OOO offer with Mrs. Smith.

The witness declared that the offer of £I,OOO was to enable him to provide for his wife and children. George Clark Walker, solicitor, before whom the agreement was made, considered that both parties knew the meaning of the terms “condonation and connivance” in the document. His Honour: It appears to be a sale of land and the wife, too.

“It seemed to me that this young man was taking the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel—wife and all,” replied the witness.

“A sort of modern Russian arrangement,” remarked the judge. “Did it seem that the purchase of the land was incidental to the transfer of the wife?” asked his Honour. “I don’t think the land was associated in the deal, but McClean had to buy some property for a home for the wife and children, and took the farm,” replied witness. SON’S EVIDENCE

Leslie Smith, the 14-year-old son of the petitioner, said that McClean was a frequent visitor to the house during his father’s absence and that his mother called the co-respondent “Archie.”

Walter James Lytton said that on Sunday, August 4, watching with field glasses from his verandah in company with the petitioner, he saw Mrs. Smith and McClean enter Smith’s house and remain there for three-quarters of an hour.

One of the principal witnesses for the petitioner was Mrs. Beatrice Smith, the respondent, who admitted signing a document confessing her misconduct with McClean, but since Christmas, when she told her husband of her infidelity, petitioner had not cohabited with her. Since the divorce proceedings were instituted McClean had made several payments of maintenance to her, and her relations with him had continued until a fortnight ago. The expenses of her confinement with first girl born in February, 1925, had been paid by McClean, but she swore that her husband was not aware of this.

Under cross-examination Mrs. Smith said that when McClean was asked what he inteded doing, co-respondent replied that if Smith would set her free, he would marry her. Mr. Meredith: Were you willing to marry him if he took divorce proceedings?

“Yes,” replied witness, “for the sake of the children.” (Proceeding.)