SENSATIONAL DIVORCE CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1457, 18 May 1905, Page 3

SENSATIONAL DIVORCE CASE.

MISCONDUCT AND COLLUSION.

(Per Press Association. l ) I Wellington, Inst night. Tho Chief Justice and a jury of twelvo to-day heard the divoroo suit of Knopp versus Kuopp and Bailey, in which George Kuopp, formerly of Hokitika and Westport, a travelling jowellor, sought dissolution of his marriage with Phcebe Knopp on tho grounds of hor adultery with Jamos Bailey, a retired baker, of Westport. Petitioner charged that Bailey, who

over 70 yoars of ago, had misoonductod himself with respondent, and asked for £5Ol damages. Co-respondent denied that there had boon any adultery, and alleged that petitioner and respondent wore acting in collusion. Petitioner said 00-respondant owned the house in whioh be (witness) lived with his wife and ohildron. Witness was frequently away from homo, and his wife beoamo

afraid to stay in the house at night. She wanted him to ask Bailey to stay there, and did so. Later on, when he returned

xom one of hia trips, he noticed that his wife’s manner towards him had obaogod. An altercation toot place at the table, and his daughter, who was then about 18 years of age, stated shat Bailey, who was present at the table, had takon his placo as her mother’s husband. Until he heard that remark he had no suspicion of the co-respondont, and had always regarded him as a friend. Subsequently ho watched his wife and the co-respondent. He found them together under compromising circumstances, and on one occasion ho assaulted Bailey. Esther Knopp, aged 19 years, and Alexander Knopp, daughtor and son of the parties, who live with their mother, gave evidence as to the misoonduot of respondent and co respondent. Co-respondent gave evidonae that there had never been any misoonduot between him and Mrs Knopp. He admitted having occupied the same bedroom with her on a trip to Blenheim. The jury found that there had been misconduot by both respondent and corespondent ; that there had been collusion between petitioner and respondent, and that petitioner was not entitled to damages. His Honor reserved consideration of tho findings.