DIVORCE PLEAS CRITICISED.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 76, 29 March 1920, Page 7

DIVORCE PLEAS CRITICISED.

CROWN STEPS IW. COURT ADkTOCRIXS CASES. 'Furtlivr mention we.s made at the Auckland Supreme Court, of the divorce j i-aso.s in which the Sclicitor-Genrral has intervene.l. They were the petitions of . H. H. Gill v Jesrie Lydi* Giil. V. Gharlos Maokadam v Doris M. 'Mackadam. G. H. , I Ratcliffe v M-. E. Ratcliffe, Arthur C. Jaminson v Eva Laura Jamieson and . Art-hus IT. King v. MaTg-eret M. Kinsr. , I The Hon. .1. A. Tale, on behalf of tlie i ■"•olieitor-fieiHTal, said he wanted to , i make further investigations," and asked J that, the ea#ee be adjourned *o that tdwy j could be heard consecutively by the one i I judge. Tlie Sotie-tor-tie-nerai alleged i I that then , was collusion, and he denied j that niioemidiiet liad Ir.-en committed as . (stated in the cases where confessions haj ■ been Med. Jn nn case had tie name of tlve person "with wham misconduct had F lieen alk-g-e,) Ihm-ii <rive.n. In the oaee. of j Janrieeon ami ,lamit\-on a name had now been given iby the wife, and the So-licitor-ficnern! wanted more time to make • investigations. Mr. Tole said the ea.ses ; all seemed to bp machine lmide. So far the 'investigate us pointed to an .attempt to , effect speedy divorce by confession. It was (elt Hint the eases' should all come before the one.jiKljnv A «injrle case, nvipht , not excite suspicion, but ii the jirdge aw . 'five applications almost in the same words, he might Imvc his suspicions aroused. Mr. R. A. Singer, who appeared for the petitioner i-n each c-uso, explained that : the case of King and Ivmg would not be proceeded with, so the court, 'iieed not be concerned with it. hi regard to the other cases, he had over and over again offered to place at the cMnpowni of the Crown anyone or any witness in tlie I cases that the Crown mi/rlit wish to examine. The Crown could call for anyone and exani'ine them where and wnou it liked. Counsel would l>e only too willinjr to put &hem before the Crown solicitor. Mr. Tole: Three of them have gone away. Mr. Singer paid they were respondents. Tiie petitioners 'had no authority over the re>pom!ems. bin Mr. Tole nvig-ht hare goiw to the respondents' solicitors. It woe a deliberate attempt on tlie part of the Crown to delay the prex-eedinfr-, which had been before the oourt since last October. Mr. Singer said that four out of the five petitioners were returned 'soldiers. It was extremely difficult to pet proof of misconduct in such cased. C'dnfeseious had been made, but the 'respondents refused to give the name- of the co-respondents, except in the case of Jamiesun v. Jenrieson. Mr. Singer, detailed the circumstances of each case and pointed out that in one instance the parties had not seen each other for V 2 months. f His Honor Mr. Justice Sim eai':d that i where the .Solicitor-tieneral said there 1 was reaeon to believe there was ' collusion, every opportunity should be ; • given for investigations. The cases were ' accordingly adjourned until next sittings. The quertkm of coste was left open. ■ The judge pointed out tlwi-t if the siu-' • picions of the -=olicitOT proved to be I iinfounded and the petitioners had been ■ put to any expense, then the court ' might award caste against him.