CHARGE OF ADULTERY.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 June 1920, Page 6

CHARGE OF ADULTERY.

TARANAKI FARMER'S CASE CLAIM FOR £3OO DAMAGES. EVIDENCE NOT CONCLUDED Charles Frederick Ammon, whose suit for divorce from Daisy Geraldine Mary Ammon was partly hoard at Wellington on Monday, sought to recover from William Reilly (co-respondent) £SOO damages for alleged adultery. Mr. Justice Edwards was on -the bench. A jury of twelve was empanelled. Mr. A. B. Sievwright appeared for petitioner, Mr. P. W. Jackson for respondent, and Mr. A. W. Blair for the co-re-spondent. In his petition Ammon described himself as a farmer residing at Whangamomona, Taranaki. He stated that he married the respondent at Avondale, Auckland, in April, 1912, and lived with her at Henderson, at Auckland, at Waiouru, at Te Kuiti, and elsewhere. They had one child, born on October 15, 1013. In or about the month of September, 1918, respondent committed adultery with William Reilly, a tramways employee,' of Wellington; and she was at present living in adultery with the co-respondent. Petitioner gave evidence that he sailed from New Zealand with the Expeditionary Force in March, 1917, and arrived back, greatly impaired in health, on Christmas Eve of the same year. His wife did not meet him, but he found her, and she received him very coolly. She told him that she was under the orders of a doctor, and was forbidden marital intercourse and travel. Petitioner had several illnesses, and was in and out of hospital two or three times. He was admitte<l,to Lowry Bay hospital in the first week of July, 1918. Respondent, in the company of several others, visitejl him once and stayed for about half an hour. Since' July, 1918, he had not spoken to his wife. He had had no intercourse with her since March, 1917. While he was ignorant of his wife's whereabouts, he received from her solicitors a letter accusing him of failure to maintain, and suggesting a deed of separation. Though he went to see the solicitor he failed to get in touch with respondent as he desired to do. Information lie received in December, 1919, prompted him to call at the office of the Registrar of Births. There he obtained a certificate showing that his wife had given birth to a child on June 22, 1919, and had named him as the father. He then instituted the present proceedings. Mrs. Alice Myrtle Eden testified that Reilly came to her saying he bad got a woman into trouble. He asked her to assist him. Witness took Mrs. Ammon into her house, it being agreed that Reilly should pay 10s a week for the child, aged five, "and that Mrs. Ammon should assist in the housework. Mrs. Ainmon did not pay witness anything. Respondent was at that time expecting a child, v.l.ieh -was born at St. Helens Home on June 22, 1919. Reilly stayed at the house, but in another room than that occupied by Mrs. Ammon. Reilly told witness that Mrs. Ammon said he was the father of the child. Witness and Reilly saw to the removal of Mrs. Ammon when she had to be taken to the hospital. Witness was present when the citation papers were served' on tinrespondent and the co-respondent. Both Reilly and Mrs. Ammon received the papers at a house in Moturoa Street. John Meßride, railway porter, was called by Mr. Sievwright to support petitioner's claim that he had had no access to the respondent. Witness testified that Ammon was a temperate man. CASE FOR RESPONDENT. Mr. Jackson briefly opened the case for the respondent,' and called Mrs. Ammon to give evidence. Mrs. Ammon stated that she did not meet Ammon when he returned from the war because she did not know he was re- [ turning. She denied petitioner's statement that he did not cohabit with her af- . ter ■his'return. She claimed that he was , the father of her child, and that months before the child was born she told him of her condition. Witness had known , Reilly for some time. She mentioned to him that she wished to find a place in which to live, and Reilly suggested that i there might be a vacancy at Mrs. Eden's. So far as witness k?iew, there was no ar- | rangement that Reilly should pay 10s a week for the child she then had. The corespondent was not aware of her condition when he found her lodgings at Mrs. Eden's. Witness paid £1 a week to Mr?. j Eden. She never admitted that Reilly was the father of her child, i To Mr. Blair: Witness used to know ' the co-respondent when she was single. . In the house in Moturoa Street Reilly occupied a detached room. Witness occupied a back bedroom with her two children, and the front rooms were let. She prepared Reilly's meals, and Reilly paid her £1 a.-week for her housekeeping. Under cross-examination by Mr. Sievwright, witness told the Court that she was present when Mrs. Eden obtained legal advice upon the correct way of registering ithe child of a married woman when the father of the child was not the woman's husband. It was witness who registered the birth of the child. She went to the Registrar's office alone. Mr. Jackson called the assistant manager of the People's Palace, Cuba Street, to substantiate Mrs. Ammon's statement that she stayed at the "Palace" on cerain specified dates. (Mrs. Ammon's allegation was that her husband cohabited with her on those occasions and that pregnancy resulted). Witness produeed the register of the establishment, and pointed to entries of the name "Ammon." After scrutinising the entries, Mr. Sievwright asked witness whether it was not apparent that "Ammon" had in two instances been written over the name "Ings" (pencilled out), and in two others over some words no longer legible. Witness replied that it was. Mr. Justice Edwards then examined the book. Hi» Honor (to witness): You don't suggest (that these were accidents?— Witness:' "I don't know anything about the entries." I'm not blaming you in the least. You merely brought the book. You don't know- how these alterations came to be made ?—"No." You can't suggest any proper reason for the making of them?—" No." Elizabeth Cunningham, who lived at Mrs. Eden's while Reilly and Mrs. Amnion were in the house, stated that shti observed nothing improper or specially intimate in the relations between respondent and co-respondent. Francis Leonard Eden, husband of the witness Mrs. Eden, gave similar evidence. , , I > Ut. BlAif! Waa aar iteteaunt mad« by

your wife to you as'to what she had been offered for her services in, connection with this case? —Witness: ''Yes." My wile told mc that 'Amnion iiad offered £SO, and probably £73, if lie won his case." Mr. Sievwright: When did Mrs. Eden tell you this'; —".Just lately. I cannot remember the date." j Was it the day after the papers were served?—"l decline to answer that nuestion. 1 have said that I cannot remember the particular date. Counsel pursued the matter further, but received nothing more definite than the answer that it was "before May l, at any rate." Mr. Sievwright: Suppose Mrs. Eden goes "into the box and swears that she never made any such statement? —Witness: She can't deny it." Pressed further, witness said: "And my wife told me only the day before yesterday that you would put in a claim for £SO for her expenses." What expenses?—" That is what I don't know." His Honor: Where was Mr. Sievwright going to put in this claim? Witness: I don't know. His Honor: This is insanity, or something! Witness: It's what she told me. His Honor: It must be insanity, because it is absolute nonsense. It can have no meaning. It is impossible for it to have any meaning at all. Mr. Sievwright (to witness): Will she have any expenses? —Witness: "I don't know what she is goiug to have." Mrs. Eden has sworn that in a conversation in your presence Mrs. Ammon said Reilly was tlip father of her child? —Eden (thumping the witness-box with his fist): "Never!" Mr, Blair was about to open the, corespondent's case and call evidence, when His Honor adjourned the Court.