TRACKED BY DETECTIVES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 783, 2 October 1929, Page 11

TRACKED BY DETECTIVES

MAN AND WOMAN IN SUMMER-HOUSE

HUSBAND SEEKS DIVORCE The story of a private inquiry agent’s trailing of a man and woman to a summerhouse of an unoccupied dwelling in Epsom Avenue was related in a defended divorce suit heard by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court today. Ambrose Hill, a labourer, was petitioning for dissolution of his marriage with Dorothy Hill on grounds of adultery. Dan Mayes was cited as co-respondent. Mr. Hart represented the petitioner, Mr. Moody the respondent and Mr. Finlay the co-respondent. Petitioner said that he was manned on October 21, 1915, and had two children. He could not dance and preferred to stay at home, but his wife was fond of dancing and used to go out three nights a week, leaving him with the children. There was no use remonstrating with her, he said, as she merely called him all sorts of names. "She told me she would sooner have Mayes’s little finger than the whole of my body,” said witness. Hill added that his wife had told him that she would give ten years of her life to have the scandal cleared up. “Mayes was always being invited to my home for tea to annoy me,” declared petitioner. He had employed two inquiry agents and as a result of their report concerning his wife’s conduct, on May 9 he launched these proceedings. Hill admitted under cross-examina-tion, that he had had rows with his wife over Mayes, and also other matters. His wife was friendly with Mrs. Mayes, who with her husband frequently visited witness’s home for tea.

Mr. Moody: Did not Mrs. Mayes speak to you on one occasion about your making unfounded allegations against your ■wife being out with another man?—Yes. And she told you where your wife was on. that occasion? —She didn’t know. The petitioner said that on the night of May 9 his wife left home about 7.30 o’clock. Mr. Moody: She was in tears when she left?—Yes; tears of temper. His Honour: Why was she crying? —I had told her to keep quiet. After the agents reported what the had seen, witness said he continued to live in the home for a week, but he had never mentioned to his wife what had happened, beyond saying he was leaving on Saturday. He agreed that his temper was as bad as that of any other man when put out. THREATS TO KILL Mr. Moody: Have you ever threatened to kill her? —She told me once at Freeman’s Bay to put the gas-tube in my mouth and take a peaceful sleep, as I was in the children’s light.” When the Norgrove case was on, didn’t you tell her you would do as Norgrove did, batter her to death? — Yes. I said it on the spur of the moment. Hill, added that his wife had told him she was going to do away with herself, and crept under the house, but he followed her, telling her not to bo foolish. Michael Francis Keefe, the private inquiry agent engaged by Hill to watch Mrs. Hill, said that on May 9 he and an assistant watched respondent leave home in Manukau Road about 7.30. She boarded a tram, on which he also travelled as far as Ranfurly Road. A short distance up this street she met a man, who she kissed. He and his companion trailed the couple into an unoccupied house in Epsom Avenue. IN SUMMER-HOUSE After waiting for some time, said witness, he and his assistant crept into the yard, and stole up to a summerhouse, where they saw the pair in compromising circumstances. On questioning the woman she tearfully admitted that she was Mrs. Hill, and the man exclaimed: “My God, I’m a married man. Can’t something be done?” Mayes asked witness who had put them (the agents) on the track, and witness replied that the husband had done so. “Mrs. Hill rushed at me,” said Keefe, “but I kept the light in her eyes and then the man pulled a piece of canvas over his head. Cross-examined by Mr. Moody, witness said that he had been a land agent before taking up private inquiry work three years ago. This was the first divorce case in which he had given evidence, and he admitted that the petitioner in another action had declined to proceed because of the unsatisfactory nature of witness’s evidence. Sharply questioned as to how he and his assistant had crept up on the couple unnoticed, witness said that they had removed their boots at the gate. He agreed he had told Mayes that if he apologised to the owner of the -property on which he and Mrs. Hill had been found, the proprietor would not prosecute. Witness did not consider that he had “put one across” Mayes in trying to get such an apology from him. George Jackson, an assistant, gave similar evidence. (Proceeding.)