TANGLED DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 62, 14 March 1930, Page 9

TANGLED DIVORCE.

NORTH AUCKLAND CASE. ADMISSION BY WOMAN. EXONERATION OF CO-RESPONDENT Allegations that the health of a man and woman had been ruined by the transmission cff a certain disease were made in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr.'Justice Ostler, when John Gamble, storekeeper, of Mangatu, North Auckland (MJ-. T. C. Webb), sought a divorce from Violet Gamble on the ground of misconduct. Joseph George Dackers (Mr. Goulding) was cited as co-respondent.; The parties were married at Mangatu on July 8, 1908, and they had seven children. The petitioner said, in evidence, he had not lived .with his wife since June, 1028, when she admitted misconduct with the co-respondent. Under cross-examination, petitioner said that he had found,.in March, 1926, that he had a certain disease, and he became very ill. After quarrels he left his w-ife. Erior to the separation he had taxed her repeatedly with misconduct and, alter frequent denials, she made an admission. She said the corespondent had forced her- into misconduct. To his Honor, he had lived with his wife off and on until the admission was made. A signed statement was produced in which the respondent said there had been misconduct, and said she knew she had transmitted the disease' to her husband. The co-respondent, in evidence, denied that he had misconducted himself with respondent. He said that he had visited the petitioner's house in the course of business. He said that he had never suffered from, the disease mentioned. . Dr. F. Macky said that, he had examined co-respondent and his wife and had found no evidence of the disease mentioned. His Honor: This case should have been judged.not by a single judge but by twelve jurymen. However,- it has been referred, to me, and I have, to decide on a question of fact. The woman does not look the type of woman who would make up the story given. If I , "" •••;' dence had ndt been called it would have been my duty to dismiss the co-respon-. dent from the case. The admission by the woman is only an admission against herself. It i 3 too dangerous, and there, is far too much chance of doing an injustice againet an innocent man to find that the co-respondent was guilty ol misconduct, which has not been proved. A decree nisi was granted, the petitioner to have interim custody of the seven children. An .order for cost 9on the lowest scale was made in co-respon-dent's favour against petitioner. A claim for £500 damages which was raado by the petitioner against the co-respondent was dismissed on the ground that it had not been made within the statutory period of three years.