DIVORCE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 May 1920, Page 6

DIVORCE CASE.

A DENTIST'S PETITION.

CO-BESPONDENT TO PAY £IOO DAMAGES. In (lie Supreme Court at X T ew Plymouth yesterday, before hie Honor Mr. Justice Chapman, Samuel Benton Hunter, dentist, Stratford (Mr. P. O'Dea, Hawera), petitioned for the dissolution of his marriage with Clara Maud Hunter, on the grounds of misconduct with Charles H. Bridger, and claimed £IOOO damages. Mr. A. H. Johnstone represented the co-respondent.

The following jury was empanelled: — Messrs. Albert Ebetts, E. E. Bailey, H. E. Hill, A. G. Lawrey, G. Feek, E. Dingle, Jas. Harvey, A. Pearce, W. T. Elder, H. Inch, F. B. Mattson, and R. A. Large. Mr. Dingle was chosen foreman.

Mr. O'Dea stated that with the approval of the Court an agreement had been arrived at for the sum of £IOO as damages and that the only question was the proof of misconduct. He then stated that petitioner was a dentist, practising at Stratford. The parties were married in Bermuda in 1896. They lived together and cohabited until December of last year. There were nine children in the family. The petitioner alleged that between December, 1915, and December, 1919, the respondent, who had entered no defence to the petition, had committed adultery with co-respondent, who was a taxidriver, at Stratford.

DAUGHTER'S EVIDENCE. Isabel Hunter, daughter of petitioner and respondent, said she liad seen her mother going about with Bridger a good deal in 1915 when her father first got the ear from Bridger. Her father was frequently away from home, and when he was away she and two sisters slept in the same room as her mother, and Bridger often came there at those times. Witness was always asked to go out of the room when Bridger came. About two years after they got the car, she suspected things were not altogether right between her mother and MrBridger.

On one occasion while her father was away in Auckland she was playing the piano in the evening and she noticed her mother go into a bedroom which was not often occupied. She stayed for a long time and then witness went to the room and found her mother in bed, wearing a silk nightdress. She- asked her mother whj»she iiad gone to bed in that room, and was told to go out of the room. She did not go out at once, and noticed that the window was wide open at the bottom and the blind was down. Her mother made her go out of the room, and she went back into the drawing room. A little while after she beard someone go round the house to the window of the room her mother was in- She went into the room and saw Bridger getting in at the window. She was made to go out of the room and the door was shut and the light put out. She then went to bed at about 10 1 o'clock.

In the morning Iter mother was in the bed she usually slept in, in the same room as the girls. When asked why she had come back she said, "Because it was too cold in the other room." When her father was away Bridger never missed coming to their place every night. When her farther was home her mother used to go out frequently and meet Bridger. She took witness in the car, would meet Mr. Bridger, then take witness to a friend's house and call back for her. Her mother sometimes met Bridger at his garage. For the past two years she had not been taken out bv her mother.

She told her mother she would tell her father of what was going on, but was told she must never tell her father. She said on Saturday evenings her mother usually took her and her sisters up town. On one occasion they were going to the pictures. Her mother left them on the way, and ihey waited at the door for her. When she did not come they went inside and sat with their father. After a time her mother came in and her father seemed very angry and said he did not believe her mother when she told him she had been upstairs.

AFRAID TO GO HOME.' After the pictures her mother said she would not go home with the others in the car, because Mr. Hunter was angry. Witness said she would stay with her mother, and so the ear went off without them. Mr. Bridger came up laughing, and they all went to the Marble Bar. On coming out, her mother said they would go and stay at Mrs. Burgess' that night. They walked round there, and then her mother said as it was so late they would not go to Mrs- Burgess' but would go to Mr. Bridget's as his wife was away. Witness said she would not stay atMr. Bridger's, but her mother said it was all right and she must go. They went round, and Mr. Bridger let them in by the front door and showed them into a bedroom, saying they could sleep there for the night. Witness said she was too excited to Bleep and told her mother she did not want to go to bed. She refused any supper, but said she would like a drink of water, which was brought to her. Her mother at length persuaded her to take off some of her tliingsSbe and her mother laid down on the bed and Mr. Bridger came in and sat on the end of the bed. She whispered to her mother to put him out. She knew nothing more until she waked in the morning feeling terribly ill. They went home about half-past nine, and her father asked her what was the matter, as she looked so ill. She said it was nothing, and that they had slept at Mrs. Burgess' that night. Her mother threatened to thrfcsh her if she told her father they had slept at Mr. Bridger'sTo Mr. Johnstone: She had no idea where Mr. Bridger spent the night on which she and her mother slept at his house. Her father and mother sometimes quarrelled. Sometimes her father told her mother he believed she was lying. She believed her mother had been afraid to go home on the night of the picture entertainment incidents.

FROM NEXT DOOR PREMISES. Ivey Jones, who was at one time employed by the A.W.R. Company, whose premises were next to Bridger's garage, gave evidence as to having seen Mrs. Hunter go into Bridger's garage and stay ■for some time. She often came there about half-past five in the evening and after going in the lights would go out. She often stayed for some time, and sometimes they would come out together, and sometimes one after the other. Sometimes they came out of the front door and sometimes they would fjo out by tlia back apor.

PETIT! OXKR'.S CASE. I Petitioner deposed to being married to ' respondent in Bermuda in 189 G. Tliev ! lived together and had nine children He 1 had no knowledge of Mr. Bridger misbehaving himself with his wife until the i end of last year. He was away f roui home a good deal, and being chairman of two of the most important committees of the Stratford Borough Council his duties .took him out a good deal at nights. On one night when he had said he would be late home, he returned earlier than expected. He saw lights up in the drawing room, and went to a window to look in, but found all the blinds pinned to the window frames. One pin, however, had pome out, and where the blind had turned up at the corner he saw through, and saw his wife and -Bridger misbehaving. In getting up to the window his foot slipped and lie made a noise which evidently disturbed them and they jumped up and made for the light and switched it off. He thought they were making for the back door and he went round to meet them, but they evidently heard him going round, and then went the other way. He went inside and met his wife, who said she had just been into the room to put the lights out. He replied that he had heard that before, but did not believe it. He then ordered his wife out of the house that night. She then "Went into a room and locked the door behind her and he did not see her again, although lie knew she was in the house for some time,

WIFE LEFT HOME OXCE. To Mr. Johnstone: His wife had given him some anxiety, but ho would not say she had been a constant source of won'y to him. She left home once and was away three months, and on asking to be taken back her offence was condoned. He was away from home a good deal at one time, having nine branch businesses to attend to. All but two of these, however, had been disposed of. Mr. O'Dea said he had several other witnesses, but did not think it necessary to call them.

The Judge said he thought sufficient evidence had been called, and he sumDied up, saying to the jury that no doubt they were as satisfied as he was that there had been a long course of misconduct between the respondent and corespondent, and tlie fact that the respondent had not defended the ease was an admission- It had been a painful thing to have a young girl called in such a ease, but she was old enough to know what was going on. He did not think the evidence left any room for doubt on the question. The family war, evidently a thoroughly respectable one. Tn regard to the agreement as to the amount of damages, he said the Court always looked very oarefullv on such arrangements, but he did not"think that With so small an amount agreed upon, there could be any suggestion of blackmail.

VERDICT FOR PETITIONER. The jury, without retirement, gave a verdict for petitioner and assessed (Vimages at the sum agreed upon—nainelv, £IOO.

Tiie Court therefore made an order for a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months, costs on the highest scale being allowed against the co-respondent.

OTHER DIVORCE CASES. MARTIN v. MARTIN. Eveline Martin (Mr. S. W. Fitzherbert) petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Thomas Martin, on the ground of adultery. Petitioner deposed that she was married to respondent in 1911 at Oaonui. A copy of the marriage certificate was put in. In August, 1.011!, her husband left her and had not returned since. She heard that he was living near Waitara with a half-caste Maori girl as man and wife, and she went there to see him, and found him living with the girl as stated.

Evidence was also given by a sister of the girl with whom Martin was found living at Waitara.

Pono Thompson, who resided at Waitara, deposed that. Martin and Miss Nellie Brown lived in his house as man and wife for several months during 1018. A decree nisi was granted, which njay be made absolute in three months, with costs against respondent on the lowest scale.

RICHTER v. ItICHTER. In the case of Ronald A. Richter (Mr. 0. H, Croker) v. Eva ft. Richter and Donald Morrison, co-respondent (Mr. P. O'Dea). a petition for dissolution and claim for £IOO damages, Mr. O'Dea said an agreement had been reached as to the amount of damages to be paid. The following jury was then empanelled:—Messrs. W. R. Anderson, A. Pearce, T. R. Clow, F. B. Mattson, R. A. Large. C. C. Akers, ,T. S. Philp. E. Martill, H. W. Milton, IT. E- Hill, N. Christiansen, and G. A. Clarke. Mr. Clarke was chosen foreman. Mr. O'Dea drew attention to the fact, that he had been advised that the proceedings were to be discontinued as there had been a reconciliation between petitioner and respondent since the proceedings were issued, but that respondent had left petitioner again. He therefore submitted that before the proceedings could go on a supplemental petition should be filed.

Tliis was upheld by his Honor, and Mr. Croker Paid lie had no option but to ask for an adjournment till the next sittings, Tliia was agreed to. DECREES ABSOLUTE. •Decree!? absolute were granted in the eases of Christiansen (Mr. T. R. Crump) v. Christiansen, and McArtney (Mr. S. W, Fitaherbert) v. SleArtncv.