REMARKABLE ALLEGATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 January 1921, Page 7

REMARKABLE ALLEGATIONS.

JUDGE ON SUPPRESSION OF NAMES. London, Nov. 4. The hearing of the Adler divorce suit was continued in the Divorce Court. Mrs. Alice Adler, a wealthy woman, petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage on the ground of misconduct and cruelty by her husband, Mr. Samuel Adler, a Jew. Miss Andrade, who intervened, was yesterday dismissed from the suit. Cross-examined by Mr. Tyndale, for the respondent, Mrs. Adler stated that her husband was always blackmailing her and threntening to inform her relatives of the improper relations which existed between them before their marriage. Witness protested against the names of her son by her first marriage and his schoolmaster being divulged, which led the judge to remark: “We cannot always be leaving out names in this court.”

In further erosa-examination, Mrs. Adler repeated her statement that during the war respondent held strong proGerman views. She also gave' further details of the story told her by a Mrs. Samuel shortly after Christmas, 1907, that on the Day of Atonement the respondent at his mother’s house entered Mrs. Samuel’s bedroom and attempted *to assault her. Petitioner next told of how the respondent, in order not to get sent back to France, “had his leg scraped with a razor by a Jewish woman, who rubbed some stuff on it.” She said her husband told her at the time this was done to produce ulcers. For this he was court-martialled and acquitted. Several nurses next gave evidence alleging ill-treatment by respondent of ! his wife, and private detectives gave ’evidence'of seeing him at Brighton with different women.

This concluded petitioner’s case Mr. Glazebrook, on behalf of Miss Andrade, who intervened in the suit, called medical evidence to prove that she had not been guilty of conduct alleged. Miss Andrade gave evidence stating the she went to respondent’s office to assist in typewriting, and he attempted to kiss her. She called him a cad and left at once. The judge then dismissed the intervener from the suit with costs, saying there was no evidence against her. Respondent was next called. He denied using bad language to his wife, and said he never held pro-German views. He had never attempted to assault Mrs. Samuel. Ertitioner lucceeded in her suit-