DISCLOSED IN DIVORCE COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3446, 10 February 1912, Page 2

DISCLOSED IN DIVORCE COURT.

UNHAPPY LIFE AT CORE. ALLEGED VICTIM TO MORPHIA, SOLICITOR PROCEEDS AGAINST HIS WIFE. i aeECIAL TO TIMES.] / ■ AUCKLAND, Feb. 9. A petition in divorce was brought before Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of 12 at the Supreme Court this morning by William Francis Inder, solicitor, against Leah Lillian Inder, his wife, and Arthur Stoddart, who was named as co-respondent, the grounds of the petition being alleged misconduct. Dr. Bainford, instructed by Mr Hannay appeared! for the petitioner, and Mr Suiger fc,r the respondent. The co-respondent did not file a defence.

The petitioner said 1 lie was a barrister and Solicitor practicing at Gore, -South Island. He was married to Leah Lillian Levy, at Dunedin, in May, 1900. They lived together until 1904, and then, in consequence of an episode at a seaside trip, lie had to break up bis home, and his wife went to her people for six or twelve months. As the result of an appeal from the respondent he took up apartments in the Southland' Hotel, and she came back. He was at a, loss to understand her actions, and was dumbfounded to learn that she Yvas a victim to the morphia habit. He had paid twenty-four doctors bills and placed her in "a private hospital. For a. long time she refused to be visited by his private physician, but when the iatter treated her lie ascertained the effects of morphia in her system. Petitioner found sufficient morphia under the mattress and elsewhere to kill a couple of hundred people, so lie Yvas told. In 1908 he secured a deed of separation, since when he had regularly paid his wife the allowance fixed. He Had only spoken to respondent once since then.

Wife *«ith a Revolver.

As lie was leaving by tlie Southland' Express from Dunedin she rushed down the platform and! presented a revolver. In order to avoid a scene liejumped! out of the twain, and drove her to an hotel, and then went to his. He did not know the co-respondent, but a man had 'been pointed' out to him at a country race meeting as Stoddart. On that man’s hand he recognised a diamond ring which was his (petitioner’s) property, and which he had loaned eo his wife. He understood 1 that the corespondent. was a guesser, or a spieler. Under cross-examination petitioner admitted having been respondent in a divorce case in. 1898. The grounds were misconduct. 'He first met his wife at the "Wanganui race course. Tlicir married life was happy for about a year. Mr Singer cross-examined the petitioner very stringently with the b ; ect of .securing an admission of the fret that he had stopped at the Grand Hotel, Wellington, with the respondent. Petitioner positively denied 1 lie inference. He said that on one occasion he was passing through Wellington when his wife was stopping at Gie Grand Hotel. He arrived by the morning boat from the South, and 'eft the some day by train on hi-s way to Takapan, taking with him his Yvife, who duo a brother-in-law, a medical practitioner there. His firm conviction was ihat she was proceeding to Takapau by previous .arrangement with Dr. Barraclougli, of which he knew nothing before leaving Gore. His Honor: I must trouble you, Mr Inder, to tell me if I have taken down exactly what you said about this matter.

Petitioner, with a somewhat melodramatic air, said his memory had revived. When at the Grand Hotel, Wellington, Ills wife was very ill from the effects of morphia. He also stopped at the Grand 1 Hotel that- night, and they, left next morning by the Napier express. “ i Had Better Chuck It.” Mr Singer: I put it that you occupied the same bedroom at Wellington ? , No; when -I found .slie was at the Grand Hotel I said this will never do, on account of the. deed of separation. I had better chuck it. His Honor: You know this won’t do. Mr Singer: Do you admit you occupied the same room? No, my wife was very ill, and I only went into the room for a little while to see if I could -render her any assistance. I did not sleep in the same room.

Mr Singer: Did you not decide to have the -respondent back as your wife, and l did she not actually go back and live in Gore for six weeks after the deed of separation? No.

Mr Singer; Do you deny that respondent- stopped for a' week at Landells Hotel, Gore, and that yon were there at the same time. After some hesitation petitioner admitted that it might have occurred, but if it did lie said lie would have slept in his sitting room. . His Honor took petitioner to task for the indirect manner in whiclrahis evidence was given. “You are~~not here,” said the Judge, “to make speeches to the jury. You are to answer questions simply and directly.” At a later stage His Honor in speaking to petitioner, said: “Lawyers are not as a rule good witnesses, 'but I have never met r. worse.” Interrogating the petitioner Mi’ Singer asked if lie had not told respondent that no man could be expected to care for a woman longer than seven or eight years, -especially a sick woman? '

Petitioner (with the air of an injured man) : It is a lie. Mr Singer: Did you not tell her that man was a polygamous animal ? Petitioner: Tut, tut, tut. No, I re_ member telling her the story of a magistrate before whom I appeared having said so. Nian a Polygamous Animal. Mr Singer: Did l you not tell lier when she was complaining of your -relations with this other woman who had been riding in your car that if she dared to repeat what slie had -said you would choke her?—No. Mr Singer: What .reasons had respondent' for making these accusations against you ? Petitioner (excitedly): Because she was' mad with .morphia. Mr Singer: What was her attitude towards you? That of a tigeress, the same as-it always was when she was under the influence of this terrible stuff. Mr Singer: Your wife had serious cause to complain about your doings with servant girls in the house?—No. He afterwards remembered 'one incident of complaint, but said it was groundless. Mr Singer questioned the petitioner about writing to Sydney for some fancy slippers, etc., for the woman whose ra-nie has been mentioned.

Petitioner admitted having signed ail order for the said goods, written by

the person in question. He may have been making the lady a birthday present or he may have been refunding the amount of the purchase by her husband, who was an old school churn of petitioner. He might have sent an order for a: madapolam night gown to David Jones, Ltd., Sydney. Mr Singer produced an account from David Jones, Ltd., which had been posted to No. 3, Wanganui Avenue, Auckland, the address of respondents relatives, with whom she is now living. Petitioner: That explains it. My wife has been writing for these things in my name. Mr Singer: You know, do yon not, that the general opinion of doctors who have treated her is that the respondent has for years been suffering from a terrible internal growth, and that the only thing to save her life would be an operation?—No, I have heal’d something about a growth, but that is ail. Mr Singer: Have you not on many occasions during your married life indulged. in drinking bouts ? —No, not any more than an ordinary individual in a prohibition district. Mr Singer: Is this not a fair sample of your language towards your wife: ‘You should not be allowed to live,’ ‘people like you should have chains on,’ ‘I will get rid of you if it casts me a thousand pounds’?—No. Mr Singer: Have you ever given your wife morphia ? Petitioner (hesitatingly) : No.

Mr Singer: Then why do you wait so long to answer? —I have to he careful.

Mr Singer: I think you have. Two lodginghouse keepers in Auckland deposed that respondent and corespondent shared the same room in her house for a night about January Ist, 1910, and also on one or two subsequent occasions. Joseph Thompson, of Devonport, deli sed that in March, 1910, respondent was living in a cottage there with a man, whom she recognised by a photograph produced ini Court, as the co-res-pondent. They lived to all appearance as man and wife, and witness supplied them with meat in the name of Inder.

Mr Singer: Was Mrs Inder’s sister also living there? Witness: Yes, and another man too. Replying to his Honor witness said she could not saj' that the men slept there.

Samuel Kraetzer, racecourse detective, of Christchurch, said he had taken the case up out of friendship for petitioner. He saw the respondent and co-respondent in company at Christchurch in 1910. George Warton, formerly in business as a chemist at Gore, said he and 1 Inder were neighbors at- Gore, and he believed Inder treated his wife in a friendly manner.

Harry Wilson, commercial traveller, of Christchurch, said he had seen respondent arid co-respondent living together as man and wife, both at Grey Lynn and at Devonport. This closed the case for the petitioner and the further hearing was adjourned till to-morrow.