UNKNOWN

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24095, 3 November 1943, Page 4

UNKNOWN

DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE Reference to the calling of private Inquiry agents was made by Mr Justice Northcroft In the Supreme Court In Christchurch yesterday when summing up after the jury had heard evidence in a defended divorce suit. "It is a necessary calling in our social circumstances,” commented his Honour, "and must be so recognised^ The case was one in which Paul Henry Colville, motor mechanic, of Christchurch, alleged adultery by his wife, Theresa Nina Colville, with Lionel John Stacey, traffic inspector, who was named as corespondent. The jury retired at 10.37 a.m and did not return until 2.45 p.m. The foreman then announced that any possibility of reaching an agreement was hopeless. Mr C S. Thomas, for petitioner, stated that the matter would again come on for trial at the next session. His Honour: The matter will then stand over at this stage subject to any application Mr Thomas might make. Mr W. R. Lascelles appeared for the respondent, and Mr A. W. Brown for the co-respondent. In his address to the jury, Mr Justice Northcroft said that while the occupation of a private Inquiry agent was not a pleasant one. if there were no agents of (hat type, there would be much wrongdoing in the community that vvocld not lomr under the notice of the Court. However such evidence (as had been revealed in the case by G. J. Hart, who had been engaged in that capacity by the petitioner) was subject to the criticism that the agent prospered in his occupation when he obtained the evidence that his employers desired. , . ... "Therefore, it has to be scrutinised with the greatest care.” said his Honour, "though you are not bound to exclude his evidence because you do not like his occupation.” , ~ „ All the parties in the -ase, his Honour said, had a definite interest to be untruthful The husband, it had been suggested. was anxious to get rid of his wife The wife was desirous of retaining her maintenance. The co-respondent also had his reputation to vindicate: there was also a possibility that his home life and his employment might be affected. It was essential, therefore, that the jury should consider the evidence of all parties very carefully. It was hard to believe, his Honour said, that the corespondent did not have an emotional Interest of some kind in the respondent. “This is essentially a problem to be settled by a cross-section of the community such as you, the members of a jury, constitute,” he said. “The real question is what belief you attach to the stories of the parties, and that is for you to decide.” On the return of the jury later in the afternoon. Mr Justice Northcroft. addressing the foreman, said: “The registrar informs me that it is unlikely that you can reach an agreement at all?” “It is quite impossible, replied the foreman. , . His Honour: Then I must ask you n there are nine of you of the one opinion? —No. sir. „ , His Honour; In that case 1 must take it that you are in hopeless disagreement. The jury was then discharged.