DEFENDED DIVORCE SUIT.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3619, 4 November 1920, Page 5

DEFENDED DIVORCE SUIT.

j PAINFUL SCENE IN COURT. i ______ j AUCKLAND, Nov. .2 j The second day 's evidence in the defended divorce petition by Mary Andrews (Mr Reed, K.C. and Mr Graham) against Ernest Frank Andrews (Mr. Inder), secretary of the Auckland Returned Soldiers' Association, was given to-day at the Supreme Court, before j Mr. Justiicc Cooper and a Jury of J twelve.

A painful scene was caused by thj principal witness for the petitioner, a young woman, repeatedly collapsing in the witness-box.

The proceedings were adjourned for half an hour, and after stimulants had been applied to the young woman, she was able to give brief evidence in corroboration of certain incidents alleged by the' petitioner. She stated that the respondent in her presence had referred to a certain man who had six "wives" and had asked why he should not have two wives. During a brief cross-examination the witness, who was evidently very weak, collapsed again. Mr. Inder said he had not the heart to continue his questions. 'He w-ould rather that his client lost his case than that he had to continue the painful scene. After one further question and answer, the young woman was assisted out of Court.

The petitioner then re-entered the witness box.

Under further cross-examination by Mr. Inder, Mrs. Andrews admitted that although she knew T of her husband's alleged misconduct she went to th# theatre with him and the children, and also to a picnic. Asked the name of a certain man w T ho had told fier of her husband's alleged misconduct, witness said she did not know it, but that in any case the man had left *New Zealand. She denied that she had said her husband had" robbed th? Returned Soldiers' Association. He was very mean. Witness said she withdrew her proceedings for separation in 1915 cause her husband said he would go to the front. "It was a great surprise," she added, "'because he had no intention- of going." She did not imply that he had not been on Gallipoli. After she found a letter to her husbaiid'from' a woman at Otahuhu, which she thought began "Dearest Frank",.. 1 she.interviewed the woman. It : was,, then that the witness learned that the, woman was "engaged" to her husband. The Otahuhu womanwas broken-hearted on hearing that Andrews was married. She had since left the country.. .

Mr. Inder, having got the witness to reaffirm the address of .a friend who had testified against her husband, as . 290 Dominion Road,-.pointed oi?i that there were no'numbers in Dominion Road between 262 and 312. Evidence was given by a hotel bookkeeper that on October 7, 1916,. a double-bedded room was occupied by a "Mr. and Mrs. E. Andrews:"' The receipt produced in Court referred to that booking.' ' , -. : » '-'■ CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr. Inder, addressing the jury on behalf of the respondent, said his client would give a complete denial to the .allegations of adultery. There was practically no evidence on which the jury could grant a decree. The respondent was convinced that the petitioner was not 'sincere -in her allegations, and that her sole object was to injure bis position as secretary of the Auckland Returned Soldiers' Association, and as a member of the Repatriation Board and the Patriotic Society. Ernest Frank Andrews, in the wit- ! ness box yesterday, stated that when he was married in 1909 he was managing a milk business for his father at Mount Eden and Devonport. Describing the first quarrel, the responuent said that one morning after a tiff his wife said she was tired of being the wife of a working man . He asked her"" why she had married a working man, and she replied that the man she loved and who should have been her husband had taken advantage of her and basely deserted her. She confessed that while she was a nurse at Avondale she had been guilty of improper conduct on several occasions. Witness told her he would look after her for his child's sake, but she would never be a wife to him again. The respondent admitted that he once taunted his wife with her past, and that when she replied that the otherTßan was collegebred and not a boor like he~was, he lost his head. - He must have struck her, for the next he knew was that she was lying on the verandah. Witness denied that he had ever stayed at the Waverley Hotel with another woman. The hotel receipt did not refer to him. It had'beeh in a pocketbook which was found at the Soldiers' Club.

Cross-examined by Mr. Seed, the respondent said he was very much attached to his children, but he had no affection whatever for his wife. In view of the fact that out of spite she had brought a concocted charge into the court, he considered he was justified in raking up his wife's past. AUCKLAND, Nov. 3. To-day's evidence , was mainly directed to showing that there never

was a Mrs. Florence Williams residing in Pencarrow Avenue. The' case for the defence was then: closed. Mr. Reed said the only issue was whether the respondent had Committed adultery with a woman named Florence Williams. Mr. Inder, addressing the jury, said that if they gave a verdict against the respondent it meant that Andrews' reputation was gone for ever. The petitioner's case was entirely based on alleged admissions by Andrews, alihough she had declared that he was "such a cunning devil" that she had not been able to find out anything. Mr. Reed, K.C, said he was perfectly satisfied that Mrs. Xorah Williams, of whom evidence had been given, had nothing whatever to do with the respondent. The case is proceeding. AUCKLAND, This Day. The jury returned a verdict for respondent, with which His 'Honour said ho fully agreed.