EVIDENCE IN ACTION FOR DIVORCE

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

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.