SENSATIONAL DIVORCE CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3447, 12 February 1912, Page 5

SENSATIONAL DIVORCE CASE

THE RESPONDENT TELLS PATHETIC STORY.

NO WRONG-DO NG PROVED. PETITION REFUSED AND HIGH COSTS ENTERED. iSrECIAL TO TIMES.! AUCKLAND, Feb. 10. Tiie divorce caoe William 1 Francis Indlor, solicitor, practising at Gore, v. Leah Lillian Iniler, his. wife, and Arthur Stoddart, the latter lining named: as co-respondent, but not having filed a defence, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day, before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards. The respondent, Mrs Inder, a quietly, hut neatly dressed woman of somewhat delicate appearance, went into tlje box and detailed circumstances of . her married life leanting up to the final separation of the parties. In referring to the evidence relative to her use of morphia the witness declared that several doctors had repeatedly ordered morphia, and it had been absolutely necessary for her to have recourse to the use of this drug on several occasions. Petitioner had* brought morphia to her at the time of the Manderville incident referred to in yesterday’s evidence. Petitioner had brought her four tabloids of morphia of half a grain each, and left them with her, saying that she might want them. Examined by Mr Singer, concerning petitioner’s behavior, witness said that she had had reason to complain of his behavior with a Mrs Black, at Gore. She found two short love-letters sent by Mrs Black to petitioner, signed “Your loving pet” j n petitioner’s note book. Witness also found entries of little commissions which had been executed by liter husband for Mrs Black. These commissions included the purchase of perfumes and oth e r little things. Witness, when she found the letters went to (her husband, and said she would take divorce proceedings. Petitioner then proceeded to force the letters out of her possession, and threatened to break her arm if she did not release them. Witness said that notwithstanding the loss of the letters she could prove that certain things had happened on week-end trips, and that she was determined to proceed with the divorce proceedings. Petitioner then went down on his knees to witness and' implored her not to take •action. By this time their lives were utterly unhappy. On one occasion petitioner told -witness that such a woman as she should be locked up in chains. He also said that he would get rid of her if it cost £IOOO. Shortly afterwards they agreed to separate, and witness went to Dunedin to live. Petitioner followed her and spent two days with her at Wayne's Hotel, petitioner having the room with her. Petitioner’s story about witness brandishing a revolver on the platform of the Dunedin railway station witness denied. Later in ’Wellington they stayed at the Grand Hotel, and at Takapau next. Witness came to Auckland and petitioner arranged for her to go back to Gore for a. fortnight. They lived as man and wife again at Gore’, but petitioner was worse than ever, and told her that man was a polygamous animal and that she was lucky to have had one man to look after for six or seven yea>s. The end of it was that witness' came back to Auckland to stay with her p-. ople. Allegations of misconduct with corespondent while in Auckland, the witness absolutely denied. Cross-examined by Dr. Bamford, witness denied that in 1904 her husband had prepared divorce proceedings because of her conduct with a man named White. She denied that under the influence of morphia she had one night gone to her husband’s office and broken a key in endeavoring to open the strong room door.

Dr. Bamford : Did you not then draw a revolver on Mr Cochrane, a member of the staff in your husband’s office, and compel him to give you his key in exchange for your broken one ? His Honor: What, robbery under arms ?

Witness: Is Mr Cochrane supposed to have clone as I bade him under compulsion ? —Yes. Witness: Then lie must have been a coward.

Continuing, under cross-examination, witness said that she had never been in a. butcher’s shop at Devonport with Stoddart. AVhat Wilson had said about seeing witness in Mrs Collins’ house was absolutely false. Dr. Bamford: In December, 1911, o.d you not write to your husband as follows: T trust that yomvChristmas will be more joyful than mine. Do you feel a nice glow as of virtue rewarded ? Do you really think that because of my wickedness and wrongdoing I deserve tlie worry of the last few years ? I wonder now who would suffer most if we were punished as we deserve? 5 Yes.

You admitted that you were guilty of wickedness and wrongdoing?—Certainly not. It is surely obvious that i was simply writing in a sarcastic and ironical strain. His Honor: I think that the letter is open to that construction. „ 6 Evelyn Levy, the mother of the respondent, also briefly gave evidence. Mr Singer, in addressing the jury, commented on the fact that the petition had not had the courage to be present in Court that day. Dr. Bamford took exception to this statement, and said it was on his recommendation that petitioner had not attended the Court. His Honor said he did not think a man could lie called a coward for staying away when lie knew that by attending lie would have to sit quiet and hear counsel say a. lot of very unpleasant things about him. The jury, after a couple of hours’ retirement, returned a, verdict that respondent had not committed adultery with co-respondent, •„ and the petition was refused, costs on the highest scale being entered up against petitioner.