Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

EVIDENCE IN ACTION FOR DIVORCE

JURY DOUBTS VERACITY OF PRIVATE DETECTIVES (PSESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, June 2, The hearing of a divorce action in which Henry George Donald, : a fellmonger, sought a divorce from Agnes Mary . Donald, on .. the ground of alleged adultery, was concluded before his Honour Mr Justice Callan and a jury of 11. David Brideson, a butcher, was named as co-respondent, and the petitioner' claimed £ 1000 damages from him and also custody of the petitioner’s 14-year-old son. The defence directly denied all allegations of adultery. . In his summing up, his Honour said he felt he'should refer to the .evidence given, for the petitioner by. private detectives. Judges', of great experience had said that the’ evidence of paid detectives should be approached, with care, 'and* indeed viewed with suspicion. The occupation of a private detective was not ■ a pleasant one, his Honour continued. Judges had selected certain classes of people whose evidence should be'weighed with particular care. Among these were accomplices, paid private detectives and, for another reason, children. These remarks, however, referred to private detectives generally, and not necessarily to those engaged in this case. The jury retired for two arid a quarter hours before returning with the answer. “No” to each of the two issues—whether the respondent had committed . adultery with •; the corespondent and ' whether the corespondent had committed adultery with the respondent." The jury added the following rider: “The jury is very dissatisfied with the evidence given by professional witnesses for the petitioner and ;is of opinion that the said, evidence borders on perjury.” The petition was dismissed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19380603.2.44

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22418, 3 June 1938, Page 7

Word Count
263

EVIDENCE IN ACTION FOR DIVORCE Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22418, 3 June 1938, Page 7

EVIDENCE IN ACTION FOR DIVORCE Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22418, 3 June 1938, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert