DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 May 1919, Page 6

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

A DEFENDED ACTION. HEPBURN v. HEPBURN. Duncan John Hepburn, laborer, Hawcra, petitioned for divorce from his wife, May Hepburn, on the ground of, misconduct with James Edward Sole, farmer, Hawera, and for £SOO damages. Mr. P. O'Dea (Hawera) appeared for the petitioner, Mr. L. A. Taylor (Hawera) for respondent, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone, instructed by Messrs Spence and Stanford (Stratford), for the corespondent The following jury was empanelled: Messrs Isaac Giodwin. W. T. McEwan, H. 0. Skelton, G. Gibson, E. J. D. Land, J. Bishop, C. R. Adams, N. Christiansen, R. Gilbert, G. Allan, T.-W. Welch, W. C. Weston. Mr. Allen was chosen foreman.

Mr. O'Dea, in opening the case, said petitioner was married in 1906. Two years ago his suspicions had been aroused, and, on the strength of information, ■ he- instituted proceedings for divorce. Those proceedings were not gone on with, and the allegations in the present petition had nothing to do with that case. The parties had been seen together in a park at Hawera, and, as the plea of condonation was likely to be raised, the petition was not gone on with. The present petition was based on charges of adultery alleged to be committed in respondent's house at Hawera on specific dates in January last. The house had been watched by the husband and friends and by a private detective, and it could be shown that Sole had slept there in respondent's bedroom. The defence was | first a denial of the adultery charges, but two days ago a further defence had teen set up that, if there' was adultery, petitioner's conduct had conduced towards it. All witnesses were ordered out of Court. DETECTIVE'S NIGHT VIGILS.

Bert W. Miinns, private detective, Wellington, said he came to Hawera on January IS last, at Mr. Hepburn's request. He saw respondent and. Sole at about 7.15 that evening. Sole went to Mrs. Hepburn's house and . walked straight in at the. back door. Witness went up to the house at about 8 o'clock and saw Mrs. Hepburn in the sitting room, with her little girl, playing the piano. The light was up in the sitting, room, front bedroom., and kitchen. He also heard heavy footsfepn about the kitchen. The blinds were down in the kitchen, but not in the other rooms. At 8.30 he saw Mrs. Hepburn^put the little girl in the double bed in the front bedroom. At 9.45 Mrs. Hepbarn entered the sitting room, and palled down blinds and windows and the lights went out. At 10 p.m. he saw Sole and Mrs. Hep- | burn enter the front double-bedded room. He had no doubt about it being Sole. Mrs. Hepburn pulled the blinds down. At 10.10 all the lights in the house went out. Witness could hear Sole and Mrs. Hepburn talking in the bedroom. Mrs. Hepburn was coughing. She had a peculiar kind of cough, easily recognised. At 11 p.m. nil was quiet. At 11.5 Mi-. Hepburn, who had been in the yard, joined witness. Both stood near the bedroom. At one o'clock in the morning he heard Mrs. Hepburn coughing, and a man and woman speaking in a low voice. At 1.15 everything was again quiet. At 1.30 he heard a man snoring. Mrs. Hepburn called out, "Wake up." He heard them talking again, and the little girl crying. At 2 a.m. all was quiet again. (A plan of the house showing where witness saw Sole in the room was submitted to the jury.) He and Mr. Hepburn then went to the school grounds, next door and watched the house all the night. At 7 on Sunday morning they heard heavy footsteps about the house. They saw Mrs. Hepburi/ come out of the house several times, and later Sole was seen to come out and go back again. Witness and Hepburn stayed in the grounds till 9.5 a.m. Witness returned at 8.15 on the Sunday night. He saw Sole in the yard. Witness left and returned at 9.30 with Hepburn, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Hughes, jun. They went near to Mrs. Hepburn's bedroom, and heard voices. There were no lights about the house at that time. They all went away. At 6.45 on the Monday morning witness returned and watched the house till B'o'clock, but saw nothing. He returned again at 9 a.m. and,watched from a tree near by. At 11 o'clock Sole came out and went toI wards town. Ten minutes later Mrs. Hepburn and the little girl came out and went towards town. About noon he saw Sole leave the Railway Hotel carrying a suit case, and he left by the train for Wanganui. On Monday evening last witness bad a conversationin the train with Sole as they came up to New Plymouth. Sole said, "I have the Hepburn ease coming on again. I have been in this hole a.couple of times and suppose I will have to face it this time." PRIVATE DETECTIVE METHODS. His Honor: Did you tell him you were engaged on the other side. Witness: No/sir. His Honor: Then you should have done so. I won't allow such evidence to be brought. It is unfair. I have had occa-sion-to complain at your methods before, Mr. Munns. Mr. O'Dea pointed out the difficulties of getting evidence in such cases. His Honor replied that he knew all about that, but he did not approve of the methods of these private detective agencies, and said he had had occasion to comment on them before. It seemed to him these men did not think they were required to "play the game." Having been engaged on the other side in a previous case, Munns should have warned Sole of the fact that he was now against him. However, after having expressed his views, he thought perhaps the evidence secured might be admitted, but he did not intend to encourage these detective agencies to do these things. Mr. O'Dea said that, as the evidence had been secured, it might be permitted. On receiving the Court's permission to use it, however, he refrained from doing so. EVIDENCE CONTINUED. Continuing, witness said ho heard no sounds while watching outside the house to lead him to believe that improper relations were going on. He had no doubt, however, that Mrs. Hepburn and co-respondent had slept in the same room. To Mr Johnstone: He did not know who the parties in the case were until after he reached Hawera on .the evening of the 18th. He did not tell Sole in the train on Monday nisht that he had no case in New Plymouth. He told him he would he in New Plymouth in about a week and hnd a case. Witness had been employed by co-respondent's solicitors about a year ago. He had then seen petitioner and respondent together in a cark la EAwcta. He did not rtuMibcr

petitioner saying on that occasion that he had no case to go upon. A statement, was put in in which Munns had admitted that respondent had said she did not know that there was anything wrong between her and her husband. She said she did not know Munns. Petitioner said he had heard that certain things had been said, and he was going to make people prove their Words.

Continuing, witness said he. went to Wanganui to inquire if Sole and Mrs. Hepburn had been at a certain house, and found it was not so.

His only reason for saying it was a man lie heard snoring in the house on a particular night was that it was very heavy snoring—too heavy for a woman's After the luncheon adjournment, his Honor made a reference to his remarks about private detective methods. He said they w«re not officers of the law and entitled to protection, as ordinary detectives w«re. They were only so called by themselves, and had no more standing than any other member of the community, except in so far as they were engaged by any of the parties. At thifi stage Mr. Johnstone intimated that the denial of adultery by respondent and co-respondent would be abandoned. The case for the defence was then confined to alleging that petitioner's conduct had conduced towards the adultery. PETITIONER'S E^JDENCE. Duncan John Hepburn, laborer, Hawera, said he was married in 1906 to Marjorie May Hunt, then a spinster. (The marriage certificate was put in.) He first suspected his wife of illicit relations with Sole about a year ago.' He left her on account of information he received from Wanganui respecting her and Sole. He was then living at Patea. There were three children, and witness took them all away. He afterwards sent the little girl back to his wife. A separation order and maintenance were settled out of court, and witness allowed his wife SO* per week for herself and child. He contributed to the support of his other children. While they lived together he gave his wife all his wages. The night he left he had no money. He believed his wife had saved between £7O and £IOO from his cacnings. He did not live with her in Hawera at all after the proceedings for maintenance and separation. To Mr. Johnstone: When married he was living in the Auckland district. The first child was born in the December after they were married in June, 190' d. He denied drinking "out of the ordinary' 1 at the time of his marriage or afterwards. He admitted having gone to Australia at one time, but denied "disappearing." He went under the name of Haslam, leaving his home and two children; but could not say that his wife knew he was going. His wife was away from home at the time. He did not leave her destitute. She had charge of the purse at that time. He denied sending any money to pay for the two children to go to Australia. To the Bench: He went to Melbourne to bring his mother over to Auckland. His mother wanted him to live in Australia, 'and he gave her some money when she came over to pay passages for his wife and children to Melbourne. He had no doubt but that the money was paid to them.

Contimiinj. witness denied having Inst employment in Australia on recount if his drinking habits, or for "rowing" with fellow-employees. He came back to New Zealand on account, of his wife's desire to return. He had heard that his wife had got money from Sydney to come back to New Zealand. He came back on his wife's money. Qn coming back. I he went to f Mangatoki. Ho denied drinking to excess there or in Eltham. He would not say he had never been found drunk in a paddock while at Austin Road. On one occasion he drove his wife into Hawera, left her there, and told her he was not coming back. That was about March 2, 1018. He denied that he gave her only £2 on that occasion—it was between £3 and £n. He borrowed the money from Mr. Tnrton. He denied that the only condition on which his wife would come back again to him was that he ceased drinking and gave her the wages. He also denied that his wife ever found him drunk on the road at Pateß. He denied lying about the floor of Payman's place drunk, with other Maori people, at Patea. At the time ly» left Patea he took two of the children with him, and gave his wife £1 when he left. He left because of something he heard from a man in Wanganui, whom he did not know His wife was served with divorce proceedinas on the day on which his wife's proceedings against him for maintenance were heard. An order was made by the court against witness for £1 10s per week. He did not remember meeting his wife and going for a walk with her in Hawera that night. Pressed for a more definite answer, he admitted taking his wife to Nolantown one evening, and then being on very affectionate terms. He later went to Patea to get some clothes from his wife's house. He went there and back by motor, and afterwards went to Auckland for a holiday. He was working for his wife's uncle and aunt, sharemilking, and received £3 per week and his keep. He denied withholding maintenance from his wife, except since the divorce proceedings were commenced. He later said he had paid nothing since February last. He expected her to live on the money she had in the bank. He denied putting a "spy" on her track. To Mr. Tayler: He gave the little girl back to his wife on the understanding that she kept away from Sole. His wife, swore she never spoke to Sole. She had been a good mother to the children, and looked after them well. Re-evamined by Mr O'Dea: While in Australia ho had corresponded with his wife. Except for that, he had never been absent from his wife during the whole of their married life, more than for a night or so, until the affair with Sole. The two boys preferred to stay with witness rather ,than with their mother. His aunt looked after the children, and he and the boys lived with the aunt. In the maintenance proceedings his wife had said he was a good father and husband. His children went to a Presbyterian Sunday school. To Mr. Tayler: All tlie children were baptised in the Presbyterian Church. His wife was a Roman Catholic. He had not been aware that his little girl, who now lived with the mother, was attending a Catholic Sunday school. RESPONDENT'S STORY. May Hepburn, respondent, said Bhe first met her husband at the Falls Hotel, Henderson. She and her husband had never got on very well. He drank considerably. After the first two children were born her husband left her, and went away without telling her he was going. His uncle told her, a week after, that he had gone, under the name of James Haslam He left no money with her. She went to the detective office, but before they did anything she received word that his mother was coming over from Australia to get the children. She came over with her own return fare and form fw tlit ohildup refused

to give up the children, and mortgaged the furniture and went with them. In Australia her husband drank as much as ever. He got out of work, and witness sent to her father, who paid their passages back, and they came to Fraser Road. Her husband was out of work for a time after they got back. He got work at Eltham, where they stayed about a year. From there they went to Austin Road, where they were sharemilking for witness' aunt. Her husband used to go drinking with a Native woman at Normanby Hotel, and she had known him to come home drunk with her. She had found him drunk in a paddock on one occasion. Witness had had to do the milking in order to maintain herself and the children. Her husband took out a prohibition order against himself because she had said she would not put up with his drunkenness any longer. When she left Austin Road her husband ordered her to pack her clothes, and he put her in a gig and took her to Hawera. He left her in Princes Street and went home without her. As far as she remembered, he gave' her about £2. She went to board at Dominion House. Later she went back to Austin Road to get the children and her furniture. She then stayed at Nolantown for a little while, and then went to Patca. Her husband went with them, on condition that he stopped drinking and gave her his wages. He did not stop drinking, and witness gave instances of his behavior in this respect. About March 2 Hepburn came home one evening and took the children (he said) to the pictures. He came back in a motor car with a policeman, and then went away and did not come back. He left her no money. She went to Hawera, and found the little girl and the others. She applied to the magistrate for a separation' order and maintenance, and these were granted. She was also served with notice of divorce proceedings at tlie, same time, but they were not proceeded with. Witness then bought a little cottage at Nolantown. Sole's mother came to stay with her, Shd while there Sole came as well. Later on Sole came alone. To Mr. O'Dea: Her husband had told her at Austin Road that if she did not get into the gig he would "bundle her in." She denied that her husband had found her down in the paddock at nine o'clock at night with Sole, and that was not the reason of her husband leaving Austin Road.

To the Bench: Her husband introduced her to Sole after they went to live at Austin Road, about five years ago. Continuing, witness denied drinking more than a glass so far as intoxicants were concerned. She also denied that at a party at Jess Smith's she said, "It's all right now, boys; I'm single now!" "How could I say that?" asked witness. Regarding the money she had in the bank, it was stated by witness that some of it was from the sale of stock and some sewing she did. In respect to the custody of the children, witness admitted that, in the Magistrate's Court, the boys had said they would sooner be with their father than her. Asked as to Hepburn taking the children away from her at Patea, she could give no reason for his action. Sole had not been there at the time. She hp.d never been with Sole in Patea. She admitted going to Wanganui races, and seeing Sole there, but did not speak to him. She also came to the New Plymouth races. Her husband never complained about her going to races. Some questions were put in regard to the payment of debts at the various places where respondent had lived with her husband, to which she replied that she had had to pay the debts. THE FALSE NAME. Petitioner was recalled on the point of the name under which he travelled to Australia. He stated that he was not aware until he was on the boat that the name of "Haslam" was on his ticket. :It was evidently a mistake by the booking clerk. He'was known as Hepburn in Australia. To Mr. Johnstone: He did not remember that when his wife came over to Australia the corner had been cut off of his handkerchiefs, which had borne the name "Hepburn." He denied ever cutting his handkerchiefs. He would never dishonor his name so as to be ashamed of it. VERDICT FOR PETITIONER. After the addresses of counsel and his Honor's summing up, the jury retired at 5.20 p.m., and returned at C.30 with a verdict in petitioner's favor and awarded him £IOO damages, recommending' that the sum should be devoted to the three children. His Honor said he would have the money paid to the Public Trustee for the benefit of the children. Co-respondent was ordered to pay £45 petitioner's costs and £25 paid by petitioner for his wife's expenses.