Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

PIGGOTT DIVORCE
! SUIT
Cross-Examination of
Respondent
HOBART, Friday.
The divorce ault in which Bussell
Georgo Jacob Piggott, insurance com-
pany managor, is seeking to obtain a
divorce from Dorothy Joyce Piggott,
on tho ground of misconduct with Gor-
don Whitebrook, a bank clerk, of Syd-
ney, was resumed in tho Supreme Court
thin morning. Tho Chief Justice (Mr.
Justice Crisp) was on the bench. Mr.
Leo Doylo appeared for tho petitioner,
and tho respondent was represented by
Mr. B. C. Wright.
Dorothy Joyce Piggott was further,
cross-examined by Mr. Doylo. When
she was in Sydney, respondent said,
and hor husband threatened to go over,
she sought to dissuado him. Sho was
quito prepared to go to Whitebrook if
she had been divorced. Whitebrook
had offered her money while in Syd-
ney. She did not take the money but
said she would let tho co-respondent
know if she required help. White-
brook urged her not to rotnrn to her
husband and said he was quito pre-
pared to marry her when she was free.
Mr. Doylo: Were you not keeping
Whitebrook posted regarding your at-
tempts to got money in tho way of
¡maintenance from your husband?
Respondent: I may have, but I do
not rocollect.
Mr. Doyle: Was not Whitebrook in-
forming his friends that ho was going
to marry you!
Respondent: He may have.
Mr. Doylo: Were you not afforded
facilities for seeing your son John?
"Objectionalno Conduct."
Respondent: Yes, but my husband's
conduct was so objectionable that I
ceased going to seo my son.
It was true that proofs of photo-
graphs of herself wore Bent to White-
brook af tor her return to Hobart, she
added.
' Mr. Doyle: Who sent them!
Respondent: I did.
Mr. Doyle: Did you not tell your
husband that you would not take up
your lifo with him again 1
Respondent: I meant on the old con-
ditions; they were too unhappy.
She had not admitted to her husband
that misconduct took place at White
brook's residence. Her husband had
lind relations with her after the sub-
ject of divorco had been discussed.
Mr. Doyle: I put it to you that your
statomont is not true.
Respondent: It is true.
Mr. Piggot: senr., told her that his
son could hardly tako her back in viow
of the admissions she had made, she
added. She did not remember say-
ing that WhitebTook was breaking his
neck to marry her. She had told pe-
titioner and his father that White-
brook was pleased that she had admit-
ted the misconduct.
Mr. Doylo: Did you not promise your
husband that you would not wear the
wedding ring ho gave you if you mar-
ried Whitebrook?
Respondent: Yes I did; a person can-
not wear two wedding rings. Mr.
Doylo.
Mr. Doyle: You stated that your
husband said ho would remarry you.
I suggest that nothing of the kind was
said.
Respondent: .It was said, definitely.
She wont to Melbourne on June 23
and got a position at Poy and Gib-
son's. Mrs. O'Hara went with hoi
when shn got the position.
Mr. Doylo: Did Whitobrook's bro-
ther not go with you?
Respondent: Definitely not.
When sho returned to Hobart Rhe in-
formed Mr. Piggott, senr., that sh<
was pregnant, and he said it was nol
possible that Russell could be th«
father of the child. Regarding i
visit tn hor home on one occasion bj
the Dowsons, it. was not true that hoi
husband had brought homo beer anc
whisky for tho evening, ns tho refresh
ments were in the house all tho time
Sho admitted that on occasions she hat
a nnsty temper.
Mr. Doyle: Was your husband no
amicable?
"Could be Charming.''
Respondent: Lot mo say that who:
my husband chose ho could be th<
most charming man possible, but or
other. occasions ho could ho the devil
Mr. Doyle: Is it not a fact that you:
mother did not like your husband?
Respondent: No, it is not a fact.
Mr. Doyle: Did your mother not saj
to Whitebrook that she would part yoi
and your husband?
Respondent: Certainly not; at lensl
not to my knowledge.
His Honor said ho was not impress
ed by evidence relating to petty squab
bles. There wero bigger things in th
case to consider.
Mr. Doyle: You havo accused you
husband of coming homo drunk.
Respondent: Yes; ho did como hom
drunk, and vomited out of tho windon
She did not get behind in the pay
mont of trade accounts to the oxton
of several pounds. Her husband dv
not pay for anything for the baby wit]
the exception of a choquo for £1.
Mr. Doylo: You said your husban<
married you for your money. Is it no
a fact that your husband know of you
financial position?
Respondent: No, it is not, because i
was not then known what [ was to gel
Re-oxnmincd by Mr. Wright, respond
ont said Whitebrook was of a ver;
fair complexion.
Dr. Albert William Shugg gave ev:
dence as to having been consulted b
the respondent. Ho saw her inf an
in Morah and noticed that it had
red appearance which was typical o
a prematuro infant. He formed th
dofinito opinion that tho infant ha
been threo weeks prematurely borr
He considered it impossible that th
child had been conceived 280 days b<
fore its birth.
To Mr. Doylo: When a child had co:
tain signs it was premature.
Dr. Edward Brettingham-Mooro sai
he had boen practising since 1913 an
had specialised in obstetrics. In Marci
1937, he attended the respondent an
saw hor in July and November of tl:
same year. Ho was present when th
child was born and considered it Wi
two .to threo months premature.
Mr. Doylo recalled the petitione
who said ho had given his wife £2 1
buy things for the baby. Ho denie
a number of statoments modo by tl
respondent in hor evidence.
Tho further hearing was adjournc
until 10.30 a.m. on Monday.
$