DIVORCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 December 1920, Page 6

DIVORCE.

A HAWERA CASE, J CLAIM FOR £2OO DAMAGES. JURY AWARDS £l5O. Adultery was alleged in a case heard at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, before Sir Bassett Edwards, in which Henry E. Harris, of Hawera, proceeded against Ethel Harris (respondent) and Alfred Ware, now of Hamilton (co-respondent) for a dissolution of his marriage and £2OO damages. Mr. P. O'Dea (Hawera) appeared for petitioner, and Mr. L. A. Taylor (Hawera) for both respondent and co-re-spondent. The following jury was empanelled:— John Horn, W. J. Cleland, W. T. Kisby, A. Richards, William James, F. M. Grayling, C. S. Rennell, R. C. Sanders, K, Gilbert, J. P. Johnson, S. Oliver, E. J. Elliott. Mr. Rennell wa3 chosen foreman.

According to the statement outlined by Mr. O'Dea, for petitioner, the parties were married on November 9, 1909, and lived in Hawera, there being two children of the marriage, a girl aged 10, and a boy aged C. Harris lived happily with his wife until Albert Ware came into their lives, and became particularly friendly with the' family. Ware went to the war about 1016, and returned in August of last year, being met on his return by Mr. and Mrs. Harris. As he was not then in a fit state of health to work he was taken in by Harris as a guest for about six weeks. Later it was arranged that he should pay £1 per week board, and he stayed at Harris's for about six months. He later left for Hamilton, where he had some work to go to. Returning to Hawera on October 7 of this year, he again stayed at Harris' for a few days. Petitioner quite unsuspecting anything was wrong, said good-bye on October 11 to Ware, who was supposed to be leaving for Hamilton. The morning following, Mrs; Harris, who was supposed to be going to see a dentist, called in' a.t the store at High Street to tell her husband she was too early, and also said she would come in and see him (Harris) again. A TRIP TO HAMILTON. Actually, said counsel, she left Hawera the same morning by the mail train with Ware for Hamilton, her boxes being ticketed "Mrs. Ware." The couple landed in Hamilton, staying at the Commercial Hotel, where they took room 25 as Mr. and Mrs. Ware. Mrs. Harris had itaken her little boy with her. The room was taken for three davs.

When petitioner found that his wife was missing, he noticed that some articles, such as bedclothes, had been taken from the house. On the advice of Mrs. Harris' father and his own people, petitioner set off for Hamilton. He was accompanied by his brother and a Mr.

Spragg (representing the wife's father). On the morning after arrival they were passing the Commercial Hotel, when Harris heard his little boy's voice. Through the door they saw Ware and Mrs. Harris both at breakfast. The three of them went inside, and Spragg saw Mrs. Harris come out and go to room 25. He followed, and found her lying on the bed crying. Harris and his brother also went up to the room, where Harris saw articles belonging to Ware. He asked his wife what was the meaning of it, and she said there was nothing between them. Could the jury believe this? asked counsel. Harris 'went to see the hotel register, and, saw the Barnes of Mr. and Mrs. Ware as occufpants, of room 25. He then went upstairs to the room, and Ware was still (there. "He punched Ware, <as any dejcent man would do," remarked counsel. Mrs. Harris was at present living in Hawera apart from her husband.

Petitioner was called, and proceeded to give evidence on lines similar to counsel's address. He said that while at Hamilton he got a letter from the place where co-respondent used to stay, written to Ware by his wife, but he' only took a copy of it, as a Hamilton lawyer told him it would be theft to take it away. Mr. O'Dea proceeded to produce the copy, but counsel for the defence objected, and His Honor held that the original must be accounted for. Ware was called into Court, and asked if he knew where the original was, and replied: "That is what I would like to know." MARRIED LIFE. Petitioner was cross-examined at length. He denied that his wife had run away on one occasion previously. She only went to New Plymouth to see a friend. He denied that he had ever told his wife "to get to out of it," and that when she went to New Plymouth she left a note under the clock saying: "Gone to , as I was told to." He further denied that he added to his wife's note the words "And a good job too."

Answering further questions, witness admitted that he read certain sporting papers, but in reply to counsel said lie did not know lie had been called a "cigarette punter" He did not know what the term meant. He denied that he had preferred his mother to'his wife. Counsel for petitioner interjected concerning the relevancy of a lot of the questions. His Honor agreed that a lot of the cross-examination seemed unnecessary. He asked counsel for respondent if he suggested that because a husband sat next to his mother at a party it was an excuse for adultery oh the part of the wife. "As a matter of fact," said His -Honor, "when a husband and wife go to a party I don't think they are expected to sit together. Probably they go to supper with somebody else." Continuation of the cross-examination touched on the question of a certain brand of pudding, petitioner denying that one night when lie came home' for dinner and found no pudding he suggested that his wife should make some "spotted dog" pudding. He denied that when she replied that she had no time he called her names. He contradicted the assertion that when Ware first came to stay at the house witness repeatedly went out and left his wife and Ware together. Herbert Bacon, booking clerk in the Commercial Hotel, Hamilton, gave evidence as toy the entries in the register. He recognised the child as the one accompanying Mrs. Ware, as she was then known. WIFE CUT THE WOOD. Mr. Taylor said the nature of the dei fence would no doubt have become apparent from the cross-examination. He

I therefore proposed lo commence the evi- | dence. W. A. Spragg, coach builder, of HaI wera, said lie liad been a next-door ] neighbor of the Harris's for some time. ) He knew they had some trouble over a cowj Harris, on coming home one night, complaining of the fact that the cow Had not been milked. In connection with the work around the house he noticed that Mrs. Harris cut most of the wood. Her husband often used to come home late for tea. When Mrs. Harris left, petitioner came to witness, saying he suspected she had gone away with Ware. [ Witness said he did not think any harm ! would come of it, and the best thins Harris could do was to go after his wife and get her back. Harris replied that he had written for Mrs. Harris' father . (Parkin), When Parkin arrived they i had a talk over the matter. Parkin asked Harris if he wanted his wife back, r and the petitioner replied that he did. Parkin said that Harris had only him- . self to blame, as he had let his wife have too much, of her own way. It was decided that the Harris brothers and witness should go and find Mrs. Harris. When they found her at Hamilton wit- ' ness asked Ware if he realised what he was doing, and lie replied that there was . no harm done. Witness saw Mrs. Harris in her room, pointed out the scriousj ness of the position, and asked her if s she was willing to go back. When they j were all in the room she asked her lms- . band what her life was to be if she j went back, and petitioner replied that |j it would bo what he chose to make it. 0 Witness was not successful in pacifying „ matters. Ware explained .lie had come t over from Claudelands that morning to j see Mrs. Harris. Since the trouble Mrs. , Harris had lived at witness' home.

THE CO-RESPONDENT. Albert Ware, painter, co-responSent in the suit, said he iiiist went to live with the parties at the invitation of Harris. During the time he was ihere, frequent quarrels occurred between Mr. and Mrs. Harris, He asked Harris if it was through witness tlmt the rows were being caused, and suggested leaving. Harris said it would be quite time for witness to leave when he told him. He, however, left in May. He had been in the habit of helping with affairs about the house, and decided to go, as he thought -Mrs. Harris was getting rather fond of him. When witness was in Hamilton he got run down in health, and Harris, hearing of this, instructed Mrs. Harris to write inviting him to visit there any time. When he made the last trip Mrs. Harris begged him to take her away with him. He declined, but on the morning he was going away she met him at the station and said she wan coming. He begged her not to, hut she replied that she was going, and if he would not take her she- would "do herself in". Eventually they got on the train, and witness was not able to persuade her to altei her mind. When they got to Hamilton it was about five in the morning. Witness f-aid he would a double room for her and the boy, and he would go to Claudelands, where he lived. She got hold of his arm and begged him not to leave her. Knowing her nervous disposition, he decided to accompany Mrs. Harris up to her room. He carried up the luggage, and was going away when she called him back and requested him t ; o lie down on the bed and not Jo leave her. He stayed there till breakfast time. That nidit he occupied the same room as M'.'r-. Harris, and also on the following night. Witness admitted receiving the letter mentioned earlier in the proceedings, and the copy was read to the jury.

"MY DEAREST KIDDY." The following is an extract from the letter: — "My Dearest. Kiddy,—l received your very polite and proper letter, written to 'Dear Mrs. ll.'. It sounds very formal for rou, dear, does it not? Dearie, my letters get delivered all right, ■ so everything 13 'pie'. Oh! sweetheart .

. . . I think your last letter sounded as if you were growing quite content up there, so perhaps you may not want things to go on now. ... I wish you were here, as I could just comfort myself with a squeeze. You do not ever say you wish I was up there. Oh! sweetheart, I had a nice box of chocolates sent to me on Saturday last —an admirer (if he will lie permitted to be so). They made me cry, as I thought of you, dearie. I am asked to go to the pictures again on Saturday, hut you might object—eh, darling—so kiddie will stay at home."

The letter concluded: "Ta-ta, my old darling. Oh! dearie, why are you not up here? From your very own kiddie —that is, if I am wanted to be same. Of course, dearie, I know you have to write a letter to 'Dear Mrs. H.' sometimes, but not always, pet. A little love letter is the next I want." Mr. O'Dea: You are in the habit of getting letters like this?—l have received one or two.

The witness was subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination about fthe happenings at Hamilton. He denied that anything improper had occurred. Before respondent was called, Mr. Taylor remarked that there was a crowded audience at the baclc of the court, and it might be difficult for Mrs. Harris to give her evidence under the circumstances.

His Honor: The public have a great objection to proceedings in camera. I never order it unless women nnd children are concerned. I have not the power to order it at this stage, but ypu can make an appeal to the public yourself. Counsel lot the matter rest at this. Evidence given by respondent was mainly on the lines of that previously adduced for the defence. She said at Hamilton that she would go back to her husband on condition that all that had happened was dropped, and lie treated her as a wife and mother ought to be treated.

Questioned regarding the letter, the respondent gave the explanation that Ware had jokingly remarked, when he was in Hawera, that he had never received a love' letter, and she thought she would write him one. ■Mr. O'Dea: What are the crosses for? —1 suppose they were good marks. Don't you mean they were kisses to be collected later ?—lf' they were, they would be collected in front of my husband. He often kissed me in front of Mr. Harris. JURY AWARD £l5O DAMAGES. The jury retired at '8 p.m., and in thirty-five minutes returned the following findings to the questions submitted: (1) Did the respondent commit adultery with co-respondent?— Yes. (2) Did the co-respondent commit adultery with respondent?— Yes. (3) Did petitioner condone the adultery, if committed ?—No. (4) Did the 'petitioner's conduct induce or contribute to the adultery, if committed ?—No.

(3) What damages, if any, is petitioner entitled tot —£150. Mr. O'Dea then moved for a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, guardianship of tha children to remain with petitioner in the meantime.

His Honor ordered the damages to be paid to petitioner. Judgment was entered against the co-respondent for £'M) (paid, by petitioner to cover his wife's ccotfi), and also for petitioner's own costs on the lowest scale.